Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Ptak

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, nothing in this article is not copyvio as it stands now. I make no decision about level of notability, and won't salt the earth; if people think Ptak is notable enough for an article, write one which is a synthesis of available sources, not a directly copy of the guy's CV off of the web. --- Deville (Talk) 19:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Ptak

Not sufficiently notable; he is a self-proclaimed pundit, he's written one book, people quote him now and then. The article is probably a WP:AUTO violation. Is this guy notable enough for an article? I vote no. Brianyoumans 23:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete per nom Dlyons493 Talk 01:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if references added before end of AfD. JYolkowski // talk 02:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I added an ACCU review. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ONE technical book? Not even close to notable. --Calton | Talk 07:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not verifiably notable, plus copyright violation: http://www.information-integrity.com/pdf/SyInformationIntegrityEES_en.pdf (see bottom of page). -AED 21:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.