Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Michael Green

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. east.718 at 00:34, December 26, 2007

Gary Michael Green

Gary Michael Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does not meet WP:BIO non-notable, possibly vanity-self promotion page.Meanviews101 (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Although it is the first edit of the nominator, but I agree with him/her. Unless there is an independent third-party reliable sources given (per WP:BIO), I opt to delete this article. Dekisugi (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above concerns, it's a nightmare to read. I was going to say keep as I believe the subject may scrape through notability, although an article here is really pointless and another place for the name to be plastered Pumpmeup 10:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, at first glance I too thought he might scrape through as notable, but various Google searches for his name turned up press releases, Wikipedia mirrors, LinkedIn, and not much else. One might expect a few more mentions, given the colourful career this article claims he has had. A prolific self-promoter by the looks of it, but not notable. Lankiveil (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep - I added a few references that help the article meet WP:BIO. Yes the article needs a lot of help but that is what we editors do :) Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: WikiProject Poker has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not ready to !vote one way or another. If some of the claims in the article are true, I might be persuaded to say keep.... but as is, without citations for some of the more extreme claims, I would be voting delete. Either way, the article needs cleaned up on both tone and references.Balloonman (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.