Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Halstead (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   keep. Apart from Starblind, no established contributor suggests deletion. Consensus is that the man is notable enough for an article. If there are any deficiencies in the article, they can be addressed through editing, if need be through a request to WP:OTRS.  Sandstein  11:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Martin Halstead
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Subject has requested that the article be deleted per OTRS email 2010100310006325. They state that the information contained in the article is untrue and violates WP:UNDUE. They provided a BBC news article and and Oxford mail article as sources to clear their name.

I will be trying to clear up any WP:UNDUE but in the meantime this is what I've been asked to request. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 09:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * For convenience: 2010100310006325.  Sandstein   11:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep and check for npov. Subject is clearly sufficiently notable to warrant an article. I can't see any valid argument for deletion here, although I can see that the article might be slightly embarrassing for the subject. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as sensible practice when a subject of marginal or unlear notability requests deletion of their own article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep subject is notable with coverage in the media, any suggestions of undue weight and and information that is not true should be cleared up on the article talk page not by deleting the article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It is clear from the vast number of media articles about him over the past 5 years as referenced on his page that he is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. WP:UNDUE might require some changes to the text of the article.  I don't think it does, but that is a matter for separate discussion.  It certainly is not a reason for deleting the article. Jonbryce (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is, perhaps whether they want to be or not, a notable part of aviation history in this country with reference to not just one but two airlines launched in a blaze of publicity. The fact that the police do not believe criminality was involved in the failure of these airlines is not a reason for not recording that the failures ever happened, and the admitted use of a fake name does add a bit of extra interest and notability to an already worthwhile historical record. Barrybounce (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Undue attention given to a subject that appears to have little or no real public value or agenda other than his own self promotion. The article has been vandalised on numerous occasions both by supporters and detractors of the subject. Angrygnome75 (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC) — Angrygnome75 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Vandalism in any direction is no reason for deletion. (If it were, then bye-bye Jesus, Mohammed, and anything sounding sexy to an eleven year old.) Peridon (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete (WP:BLP violation removed by administrator) Delete and forget. Navigatetoav8 (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC) — Navigatetoav8 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep  and clean. Parts of the article are  indeed outrageous as a personal attack, but the subject is nonetheless notable   DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and edit to reflect conclusion of BBC/Oxford Mail reports, i.e. that the police have found no evidence of criminal offence. Subject is therefore entitled to "clear their name" of implication of impending criminal charges, but grossly unethical business dealings have already been adequately demonstrated/admitted. Ecozeppelin (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Per DGG and Ecozeppelin. (Not often I'm that brief...) Peridon (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. No problems with this. It is notable and supported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.211.173 (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2010 (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.