Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Landy Steen


 * 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. And a trout to the nominator, who is reminded that AfD is not for cleanup, and that "Nobody's working on it" is a argument to avoid. The Bushranger One ping only 00:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Matthew Landy Steen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

90% of this article is unsubstantiated by reliable references. 50% of the article appears to be primary research. I edited it a little yesterday and received 6 disambiguation errors, not from edits I added. Probably this has occurred before to others, but no one bothered to fix them. Apparently this article is so bad everyone seems to be avoiding it, including me from now on. At my first attempt in July at fixing citations, I could resolve none of them. The primary editor assured me he could fix them, but since my first visit in July there have been zero edits by the primary. It needs a total rewrite, but it's not something I'm interested in doing. It's an embarrassment that should at least be hidden from public view, perhaps in AfC.  :- ) Don 13:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - No real reason for deletion given in the nomination. Needs a re-write yes. But not deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - You're quite correct. If I followed WP:BLPREMOVE there would be no need for this AfD. However, I would prefer that some attention was given to the article. AfD seems to be one of the few ways to accomplish that. It may not be correct protocol, but it seems to be fact. --  :- ) Don  17:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:23, 3 October 2012 (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.