Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Caparoso

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 of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  01:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Randy Caparoso

Delete nn. vanity, advertising--Porturology 02:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 02:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity is bad enough, but this is a really lazy Scissors-n-PrittStick job --die Baumfabrik 02:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the first version of "Randy Caparoso" was a vanity piece. Please chalk this up to inexperience. The piece has been totally revised to focus on its primary purpose: to pose the subject as a virtually the only wine writer today known for knowledge of Asian and fusion food and wine matching. This is of great value because this is what people eat today, and wine is often their chosen beverage. Please reconsider deleting the revision.

• • Comment The problem is the self reference - if you had a third party, authorative reference concurring with what you have written about yourself - it may be more acceptable. However, it is not a good thing to write about yourself - firstly because you can not be subjective and secondly because it implies that you are not notable enough for someone else to create the article--Porturology 03:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP is not a resume server.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. MCB 04:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Is wine a non-trivial field? — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with chainsaw. Santé looks legit, and if it named him for an annual award, that makes him notable. Also, it might be a reliable source for biographical information. Melchoir 08:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • What does "keep with chainsaw" mean? -- Kjkolb 14:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, for starters delete the two "sections". Then NPOVify with extreme prejudice, and if no source is found, slap an OR tag on the remainder. Sound good? Melchoir 20:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't have an opinion on the article. I was just curious. :-) Kjkolb 04:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Fair enough! Melchoir 06:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:AUTO as content is already duplicated at User:RCaparoso; if someone wants to write a neutral biography they can do so. Just zis Guy you know? 12:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete. If he got the award, that makes him notable, as others said. I think all it needs is a CleanUp, and a bit of a copyedit. It also could be good for people wanting to find out about his work, as they may be genuinely interested. --Chachu207 19:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Masturbation. Moe Aboulkheir 03:00, 9 March 2006 (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.