Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Saldan

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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. The article could use some trimming, as Movingboxes points out. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Saldan

Bio of a motivational magician written by User:MotivationalMagic (who has also written motivational magic). Looks like spam to me. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The tone is a problem, but the article appears to be adequately referenced. --Eastmain (talk) 09:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The signature "Rich" on this message suggests very strongly that the article is an autobio. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the references/bibliography are questionable; only two of the references verify, one (About.com) points to the Pocono Record article and the two Philadelphia Inquirer references are of questionable relevance and don't directly mention Saldan within the limited (paid news archive) preview/title. – Zedla (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the fact that the article may be an autobio is reason to look at it closely for COI problems, not a reason to delete. --Crusio (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though there are a few media references, there is nothing to indicate that this person is especially notable or meets WP:N. If the article is kept, it needs to be drastically cut, as most of it seems to be unsourced personal impressions of the subject. The length of the article is way out of line with the notability of the subject and unrelated to the supposed notability. Movingboxes (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Movingboxes. --Crusio (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Saw a page that said I should comment here? Wasn't sure if that is correct?) Please consider that this article is within the scope of “WikiProject Magic”, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to magic on Wikipedia, and an online Wiki directory of noted magicians and their specialties. Additionally, this article has been heavily revised and reduced to meet all of the items raised by the editors listed above. It's been quite a learning process. Several editors have taken time to provide valuable insights in writing Wiki articles. Now have a better understanding of Wiki guidelines for writers. Please review and reconsider? Regarding notability, while not as strong as a Zig Ziglar, please consider that refs provided (article, tv, book, articles) are stronger than several of the speakers and magicians that I have been reviewing on Wiki. Hoping that might be considered. Google search provides more refs. Thank you. MotivationalMagic (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2008 (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.