Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tari Schreider

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 of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 18:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tari Schreider

Vanity bio, stuffed with peacock and weasel words, about a "leading authority in disaster recovery" -- so leading, he only gets 148 Google hits. Was prodded, but removed by User:Monicasdude with the message "recognized expert in his field": perhaps he can share his source for this? Calton | Talk 15:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep but kill the peacocks. As long as this is the same dude, he seems to have two books out in this field (my only hesitation is that the Amazon blurb, while claiming he is a "recognized expert", gives him expertise in a different field than the article does). Or maybe it's the same thing, this all seems like a bunch of buzzwords to me. But in any case, if the claims in the article are all true, this guy seems to pass the notability bar to me, but I admit it's close. --Deville (Talk) 16:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete as vanity. The 'recognized expert on blah blah blah' comes from his own promo stuff. Its in his bio at just about ever conference he has spoken at. I guess I have a problem with him creating his own entry as well. His books look like pretty cheaply published spiral bound handbooks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montco (talk • contribs)
• Delete - perhaps an article can be made some day that meets our requirements, but in the meantime there's no point at all to having vanityspamcruft sitting around. Better to have nothing than something bad. DreamGuy 21:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Harro5 05:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not your book jacket flap. NTK 10:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's in extreme bad form to insert a promo piece about yourself as an encyclopedia article. It drips with POV. Frankly I don't care if he barely crosses the notability threshhold, because this isn't a legitimate article as written. And it's not at all clear he does cross it; writing your own bio is a pretty darn good sign that you're not actually notable. Derex 03:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy to User:Tschreider. I disagree with the reasons for the prod being removed - it's not speediable but it's unverifiable, vanity, and so on. However, once it's been objected to it has to go. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy per Stifle. Accurizer 15:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Manufracture 12:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete same reasons as nom --Strothra 22:12, 12 April 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.