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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Pablito Greco (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)

I do not see any notability of the person. There are many references, but all of them are either self-published, or blogs, or irrelevant Ymblanter (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Textbook fluffy vanity article designed to promote someone who is otherwise, relatively unremarkable. Dennis 14:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The overall work and activity of this individual has a great educational, artistic, and entrepreneurial value, and the article that I have decided to compile, although being a novice Wikipedia member, has inspired many people of all ages, including me and the dancing community I represent as a member. The article had many structural changes and beautiful corrections from extraordinary Wikipedia editors in the past. I embrace them all and I will embrace much more changes and corrections, but not a deletion. It is a bulky and quite strange point of view. It will be wise enough to propose corrections/changes. Thank you. NickDimou 00:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickDimou (talk • contribs)
  • Nick we got your email, and the communities of NYC, LA, WA, DC did also. I, carefully, agree. I can't see any Wikipedia policy that have been overridden with the article of Pablito Greco. All I can see is a Renaissance man that creates heavily, has best-selling educational ebooks, and doing the best to promote methods for efficient tutoring and education. Just like Wikipedia does. Value after value. This is what Wikipedia needs. Personal comments for him or his career are VERY inappropriate from old Wikipedia members, which they supposed to have high behavioural standards (role models). Wikipedia has a lot of junk articles, and this is for sure not one of these. I will post here, as many as I can in the near future. I want this article ON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.240.96.131 (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 192.240.96.131 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Canvass Alert According to this diff this AFD has been massively email Canvassed for support. Alsee (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not only are there no actually-usable sources cited in the article, the subject seems never to have been covered by any. Fails notability. Ntsimp (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have examined every reference used in the article. They consist of his blogs and other self-published webcontent, several of his self-published e-books, his self-published videos, his self-published business website, an internal link to Wikipedia(!), a number of independent websites that fail to support the referenced claim (and which would be of questionable value even if they did support the claim). The IMDB "movie" listing is a no-budget short video which appears to also be self-produced. thestival.gr, rthess.gr, and dancepress.gr all contain the same thing - a bare mentioned of the name in a listing of a Tango marathon (the same one). metrogreece.gr and einkos.gr just duplicate/link back to ellines.com. I couldn't tell whether the ellines.com bio was self-written, but even if we did assume it was independent and Reliable it would be be the *only* substantive source on the entire page. I'd also like to note that I searched Greek Wikipedia and couldn't find an article on Pablito Greco, Pavlos Mavromatis, or the Greek version Παύλος Μαυρομάτης. (The search did turn up two references to one of his self-published ebooks. I left Greek comments on the talk pages that they were poor sources.)

Even if we assumed this person is Notable, the article is so wildly promotional and lacking in Reliable Sourcing that it would pretty much need a ground-up rewrite anyway. Alsee (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix Hello Wikipedia! Please, let me know if I did understand correctly. We are discussing about this article and if it should be deleted. And we're doing that in a public webspace, that it is not so public after all, because all the opinions must express mainly the admins point of view, and not the public's, because if they do then the possibilities of deletion are even more because this is called Canvassing, or something like that. Fix the article from the ground-up, and let the public VIEW AND EDIT this article freely and entirely. This is Wikipedia, isn't it? 149.255.32.229 (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be helpful if you actually went and read the policies on inclusion, canvassing and such, as this isn't a good page to debate them. For the record, Wikipedia isn't a "public webspace". It is a privately owned website, owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. And article content never reflect "admin point of view", they reflect the words of editors, within policy. Admin don't decide content, we are just editors with a few extra tools. It seems your impression of Wikipedia is very different than the reality. Dennis 2¢ 00:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Make better Deleting a Wikipedia article is sad, but it is what it is since there're policies to follow for the Wikipedia system to work. I'm ok with that. I joined on july just to play with this particular article. I will find others, I'm sure. Deleting an article of a person does not make that person less valuable. But still, I would love to make it better and better. Cheers! NewYorkerMe 00:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewYorkerMe (talk • contribs)
• Keep and fix, or else delete Creating this article was very exciting for a Wikipedia's newcomer like me, back then. Not only exciting, but learning how this community works was and is amazingly creative. Thus, I do insist on having a solid article for Pablito Greco in Wikipedia encyclopedia. A very creative artist and entrepreneur, notable for his work. What I propose is, since the admins does not agree to keep this article and fix it, to delete it and save our time/effort and start from the beginning on trying building a firm Wikipedia piece which everybody would be proud to edit. Let's do and embrace that as soon as possible. Love. Nick 01:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickDimou (talk • contribs)
• Delete—the article is very improperly sourced to be kept. Several of those commenting here express a desire to keep and improve the article, and that's a laudable goal. However, to be kept, the subject needs to be notable, and one of our key metrics for determining that notability, as Wikipedians use the term, is the General Notability Guideline (GNG). The GNG says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." For the following reasons, this burden has not been met by this article, and at this time, deletion is warranted.
  • "Significant coverage" means that the sources are about the subject of this article, instead of just mentioning the subject.
  • "Significant coverage" also means multiple sources, not just one or two.
  • Reliable sources are those that have a reputation for editorial oversight and fact-checking. Reputable publishing houses proofread books they publish. Reputable journals submit articles to peer review or another process designed to verify the accuracy of the material. If necessary, these publishers will publish corrections, issue retractions, or even recall printed material as necessary to protect their reputations.
  • Sources from blogs hosted on sites like Blogger and Wordpress, as well as postings on Yahoo! Groups or videos on YouTube or Vimeo are not normally considered reliable. If they were published by an expert in the topic, they may be acceptable for use.
  • "Independent of the subject" means that the sources cannot be intimately connected to the subject. In this case, Greco Publications would fail that test. That isn't to say that we can't cite some information to sources written by the subject, but

Imzadi 1979 → 23:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NOTEBLP, fails to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Bejnar (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2014 (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.