Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nat Gertler

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 speedy keep. Obviously notable topic where WP:SNOW applies. Article does in fact have secondary sources, contrary to claim in nomination--which seems like retaliation for troubles elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Nat Gertler

Nat Gertler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The majority of sources listed are from his own website. This page reads like a straight up promotional piece advertising his work. I've made thousands of edits on wikipedia, but I'm new to AFD, so please help me do it right if I listed it wrong. Causeandedit (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

As the subject of the article, let me note that actually, zero of the sources (references used to build the article) are from my website. Three of the six external links are to websites I control, but those are not listed as sources for the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. References are fine; notable author; meets WP:GNG. It is a further sign that the nominator User:Causeandedit is out of control and should be blocked from Wikipedia--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. The article has multiple secondary sources (Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun-Times, USA Today, Christian Science Monitor, etc.) and the subject has been nominated for awards in his field more than once. It seems abundantly clear to me that this article meets notability guidelines. (I've got 99 problems, but notability ain't one.) Perhaps it was nominated in bad faith? If there are specific issues, surely they can be addressed on the talk page. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2013 (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.