Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodore F. di Stefano

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. W.marsh 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theodore F. di Stefano

Theodore F. di Stefano (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Mr. di Stefano seems to have created his own article here. it was tagged as a non-notable bio but there's some definite claims, including a small book and numerous articles. I've cleaned it up a bit and added some sources, but I'm unclear on exactly how famous this individual is (he's got something on the order of 245,000 Google hits, mostly for articles he's written on E-Commerce Times which we somehow lack an article on as well. No falsehoods or aggrandizement seems to be occuring in the bio, and I know our business world articles are often lacking/missing so I bring it here for the wider view. No opinion as nominator. -- nae'blis 19:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete seems not very notable; the magazines seem mainly professional journals; the book is not in print so apparently also not very important. Besides fails WP:AUTO (do not put up your own autobiography, if you are notable someone else will create an article on you). Arnoutf 21:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Userfy and delete. Possible notability, but this is his own page, and his userspace is utterly empty. --Dennisthe2 02:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Well, judging by his Google hits, he does have some notability.... S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep I'm satisfied he meets notability but an admin should block him from editing the page as it is a violation of WP:Auto. Quadzilla99 03:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The Google hits are unconvincing, authorship of journal articles and an out of print book do not seem to qualify under WP:BIO. JCO312 03:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy per Dennisthe2. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Userfy absent at least two independent reliable sources evidencing notability. Currently there are none. --Shirahadasha 04:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy Userfy it. Somitho 10:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. According to http://worldcat.org/isbn/0967596912 , his book is available at several libraries. --Eastmain 17:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Writing a book does not instantly make one notable, if the book is notable which it probably isn't then this page should be merged with the book it self. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:N WP:AUTO WP:RS /Blaxthos 23:44, 29 January 2007 (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.