Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gus G. Widmayer

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Gus G. Widmayer}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gus_G._Widmayer Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Gus G. Widmayer}})

Most of this is an potential unsourced BLP, looks like he self-published several book but I can't find anything which gets him remotely close to WP:GNG, and even if he is notable this is written so promotionally it needs WP:TNT. SportingFlyer T·C 05:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 05:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Delete with fire and storm: Seriously? This is an exercise in vanity if one exists on Wikipedia, and fails the GNG and any notability standard by a country mile. Maintaining this article seems to have dominated the article creator's Wiki activity over the last decade, a similar turgid mess being Indian Hill House (whaddaya know, Mr. Widmayer's residence), Kilbourn Place (whaddaya know, Mr. Widmayer's offices), and Blackman House (of which the entire article is "Blackman House, designed in 1992–93 by Maurice K. Smith, former professor at the MIT School of Architecture and Planning. The house is set on a bluff overlooking the Atlantic Ocean."), the latter two which have been prodded and all created by the same editor. Ravenswing 08:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia makes no demand for solely biographical content to the exclusion of autobiographical. IndianRidge uses fully-sourced material from books that appear in the Library of Congress which -- as with Wikipedia -- has no restriction on self-published versus commercially published works. Yesterday's simultaneous request by Ravenswing and SportingFlyer for deletion of IndianRidge contributions at Blackman House, Groton Historical Society, Asgard House, The Collector's Library, Kilbourn Place, Groton, Massachusetts and Ravenswing's wholesale rewrite at Indian Hill House amount to a denial of service attack against me, IndianRidge.
• Delete. Essentially a resume and I suspect an autobiography of an individual who has not attracted anything like the required independent coverage to meet WP:BASIC or WP:BIO. I'm sure there's no need for the sort of comment above though - if maintaining this article really has dominated the user's wikipedia article for the last decade then the least we can do is try to be kind and polite while we remove it. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
• Hogwash and rubbish. This is a total and complete violation of the Wikipedia terms of use. It needs to be removed with haste and fire. Self-centered narcissists who misuse a public open edit encyclopedia that explicitly says do not create an article on yourself, should not be coddled. We live in a horrid time because of too much coddling and too little laying down the law. This is the type of article that makes Wikipedia worse. Wikipedia explicitly bans autobiographical articles. This needs to stop. The really, really sad thing is this horrid misuse of Wikipedia has survived for so long.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Widmayer was elected to the Groton, Massachusetts Planning Board in May 2019 with 61% of the town-wide vote, and is serving a 3-year term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndianRidge (talk • contribs) 01:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

:*The mayor of Groton wouldn't even be presumptively notable for a wikipedia article per WP:NPOL. No one is presumptively notable anywhere for being on a town's planning board. SportingFlyer T·C 01:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delete I have to say I highly suspect the person who created this article personally knows Widmayer. The only "sources" here are book adds for his books, and the election returns. Adds for products are inherently not indepdent, reliable sources, and in the case of the Barnes and Noble Page advertising his Falmouth Plain Revisited it does not even provide much information. Election returns are never reliable. No planning comissioner anywhere is notable, in Groton not even the mayor is even close to being anywhere near inherently notable. Not every author is notable. I've seen articles on professional trained historians with at least one academically published book and a few articles get deleted. This is so, so far from being a notable person it is an insult and a misuse of Wikipedia to keep it up. Wikipedia is not meant for people to engage in self aggrandisment by holding themselves out as notable when they are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Comment The fact that this article has existed since 2010 is a total and complete travesty. The fact that it was openly created as a change for a user page is such a blatant violation of the rule against creating an article on yourself, I think banning the account that did it is fully in order. This guy is a very small time property developer, he has "written" books that maybe some people have bothered reading, although his second book involves misuse of the term written, since he glomed together a bunch of old newspaper articles and pretended this was the same as writing a book. Shoddy, sub-standard books more about the narcissism of a writer and their self-created large role in the world are common, but Wikipedia absolutely should have 0 autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Okay, Okay, I get it! You are referring to a real person with feelings. I am right here! Posting to Wikipedia has been very enjoyable over the past ten years. The Internet started out as a place for open, free-expression. I embraced that whole-heartedly. But, I understand there are very strenuous rules that have been violated. I am sorry. I learned a little about coding wiki articles and expanded my horizons. I found it to be tremendously motivating to first outline my biography, think how to improve it (and myself), and then take steps to go there. A local high school teacher e-mailed me recently to say that a young man read my Wikipedia page, and wondered if I would come in to speak with the students about how to self-publish their diaries. It's a break from the 9 to 5 and I am looking forward to it. How does this delete process work? Will this page simply vanish in a few days? Be well guys! Thank you for your instruction. IndianRidge (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)IndianRidgeIndianRidge (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC).

::For what it's worth, while I'm afraid I agree that this article should be deleted, I vehemently disagree with the way that some editors have chosen to express that. There's no call for that sort of behavior towards someone whose only crime was to create a page that didn't meet WP policy. I'm glad you've enjoyed editing your article and I hope you'd consider taking on some other articles instead. Editing Wikipedia is (or can be) hugely motivating, like you say, and there are countless articles out there that need someone to carefully whip them into better shape. You might find you enjoy that just as much. Best of luck. Hugsyrup (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

::P.S. To answer your question - around 7 days after this discussion was opened, an administrator will review it and if they find that there was a consensus to delete then yes - the page will simply vanish. Hugsyrup (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. The sources used in the article are not good. GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.