Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Howard

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. Avi 15:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Howard[edit]

Contested speedy. Bio and promotion for an author telling you how to win the lottery. Looks like spam to me. Fan-1967 14:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BALEETE. Contains everything that you don't want in an article. ~ Flame vip e r 14:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep and purge from spam. Although a hustler, she looks like a notable hustler having published many books for gamblers (Amazon).--Ioannes Pragensis 14:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Seems to meet the criteria under WP:CSD#G11: "Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic." (emphasis added). Fan-1967 15:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but this does not need a fundamental rework - it is anough to drop the advert-loaded 50% of the article and tag it as a stub.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would rate the advert as closer to 90%. Fan-1967 06:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ioannes Pragensis. FYI, heres how to win the lottery. Write a book called "how to win the lottery" and sell a million copies at a tenner a piece....simple really! Jcuk 15:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, no matter how notable the person it cannot be verified without proper sources and citations Alf photoman 17:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page is User:X121314x's only contribution to Wikipedia. This smacks of self-promotion to me. Venicemenace 18:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. As Ioannes said, she's quite notable as hustlers go. Lots of books (four currently available from Amazon, some with ranks in the 50K range), annoying commercials, little pamphlets to buy at checkout counters, the works. Yes, the article's a mess, and needs work for POV, sounding like an ad, being unsourced, etc., but I think some work should turn up plenty of sources. Pinball22 19:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CSD#G11, because what is being proposed above is a complete rewrite. WP:BIO, because I don't see any links to multible reviews of her work. Sandstein 06:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein and Fan-1967. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 12:03, 19 January 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.