Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Linden (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 09:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Charles Linden
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Raised at WP:COIN, where passing to AFD was advised on grounds of lack of notability. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article is clearly advertisement for Linden Method. Charles Linden himself is the major contributor to the article. Article does not include impartial references. Questionable notability for encyclopeadic entry. Colliver55 (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - Only remotely independent reference the Birmingham Post article has been copied in large chunks so article also has COPYVIO problem. -Hunting dog (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - distinctly promotional, and doesn't seem notable. NewsBank (UK newspaper archive) finds only a handful of references: the 2004 Birmingham Post piece, and half a dozen mentions in superficial "Stress Tips" type articles around Christmas 2007 that clearly stem from the same press release about the launch of Stress Free in 30 Days. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note that I worked with Mr. Linden extensively on this article, with the help of bureaucrat Deskana, to create a neutral, non-biased, non-advertisement version last year. Unfortunately, it would appear that there has been much back-and-forth editing since I was on a break, and the version that is up there now is quite different, and does make it sound much more promotional. (This is the version that was approved by all months ago). All that being said, Mr. Linden himself, months ago, asked for the article to be deleted. He was not the one who first put up this second article after it was initially deleted following the first AfD, and would prefer it were not on Wikipedia. I would agree that as far as notability in the media, the article barely meets the standards, and see no reason that it could not again be deleted. Perhaps the title needs to be salted to prevent yet another re-creation. Ariel  ♥  Gold  21:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That version does look fairer, and more power to you for your patience. Nevertheless, I wouldn't say one third-party source was sufficient, and the "in response to these claims" bit looks distinctly like original research or WP:SYNTH (the statement is just a copy&paste from www.anxman.org - guess who chairs the International Association of Anxiety Management? - where there is no mention of it being a response to anyone's claims).
 * He was not the one who first put up this second article after it was initially deleted
 * Though one might suspect an involved party, as we've never heard again from the SPA who re-created it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete & Salt - See above. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not see how the sources are adequate to show any appreciable notability to for him or his method. DGG (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Though the Birmingham Post article seems like an independent source, it does not appear that the reporter did much more than interview Charles Linden about the methods he uses, and obtain a one-sentence testimonial from another psychologist, Dr. Allan Norris. All the other material is the work of Linden himself, so is not independent of the subject of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Another egregious example of entrepreneurial types exploiting Wikipedia to promote themselves.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2008 (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.