Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Dana


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Al Dana

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

One of several articles from now-banned user who promotes clients on Wikipedia for money. See User_talk:Smkovalinsky and User_talk:Plastikspork.

Subject of the article is of uncertain notability. He's a serial inventor, but many of them seem to have ended at the patent stage with no products developed. Only possibly notable thing seems to be the "disco shoes" lawsuit. Article claims the resulting lawsuit resulted in "Offensive Collateral Estoppel" precedent, but I can find no evidence that this is the case, although the case is cited in books as an example, but I can't find any claiming it the the origin. I am not a law expert. Hairhorn (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete -- even if the legal case is notable in legal circles, that does not make Dana himself notable. A Google News Archive search for "Al Dana" turns up a zillion hits from the Middle East so I tried "'Al Dana' + inventor" and came up with nothing reliable. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See also these other promotional articles: Kegel Male Trainer, Security Footwear and Liz Glazowski as well as User talk:Petrosianii. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also see Articles for deletion/Kegel Male Trainer. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep given the information about the nature of the editing, I have stricken my !vote. actual substantiative notability is the invention of a lighted shoe, which subsequently became a major product. The sources showing this are rather confused, but it seems he did invent such a shoe, and it was widely used. That would be notability.  A negative result of GN will not be reliable, unless you try a great many possible approaches.  But I too do not find the legal case notable. INAL, but it seems not to be a major precedent.  DGG (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ... Just an update to say a quick reading of the suit makes it clear that Offensive Collateral Estoppel did not orginate with this case. I also can't figure out how the case ultimately ended, which would be relevant for notability (is he the inventor, or just a guy with a related patent?) Hairhorn (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete it's a blp without any reliable sources (just a link to a US patent office search page and a link to a scan of a court ruling from when he sued another company over patent infringement). Yet it is filled with extravagant dubious claims (the legal one about precedent, for instance), his love of collecting ferraris, his genius, his generosity, the hotness of his wife, etc.... Bali ultimate (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no WP:RS and created by a known paid contributor. Plastikspork (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I consider that relevant--see above. DGG (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete BLP with no WP:RS who was a subject in a NN legal case. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No sources for this BLP. Hipocrite (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2009 (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.