Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Halding


 * 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 Mandsford 21:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Michael Halding

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Delete. Non-notable blogger referenced largely from the subjects own blog and other bits of the blogosphere. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable sources provided. Michael Harding appears to be a pseudonym for an anonymous blogger. Information cannot be independently verified. Wikipedia is not MySpace or Blogspot. Ground Zero | t 22:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. All it comes up with is blogspot links on a google search. It's... MR BERTY! talk/stalk 12:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not Delete. Quoting from Mr. Berty above and responding. Criteria search "Michael Halding" linkiest.com, conservativegrapevine.com, www.therealunitedstates.com, lonelyconservative.com, www.icann.org, www.myfreedompost.com/,books.google.com/, www.servinghistory.com, childrenstable.net/, www.wajabu.com, www.dogpile.com/, www.videosgallery.com/, www.celebrityphoto.com, www.spottelecom.com. Again, unless the editors above are unfamiliar with using ("'s)in their searches, I am going to have to jump on the "bias" bandwagon. This writer has had numerous attempts of vandalism. Quoting posts on the fan blog (AND OTHER SOURCES) he has suffered them on all mediums. Under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#Creative_professionals # The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
 * 1) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. Nearly every single fan response to this writer fulfills these guidelines, not unless you can deny all the comments made by his fans?  Last I checked they qualify under "peers." It is proven that this writer has made significant impact to a group, which makes him notable by our policy.How do I know this? Because I read and explore all listed references. Unfortunately, it's because I have too much time on my hands. Gelmoth.v6 (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What profession does he qualify for? Is he a professional blogger, i.e., does he get paid to be a blogger, or is he an amateur blogger? If he is the later, as seems to be the case from the article, "Creative professionals" does not seem to apply. If you are going to accuse other editors of bias, then you must provide evidence with respect to each editor, rather than making a blanket accusation like that. Finally, can you provide any reliable sources, i.e., ones that are not blogs, e.g., news websites, newspapers, magazines, books? Ground Zero | t 23:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since he is an anonymous blogger, this may not even be his name. It's... MR BERTY! talk/stalk 19:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. So his name is really Mr Berty...... Peridon (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I wonder if this could qualify for the title of worst-referenced article? Perhaps not. If those quotes in the article are typical, yes, I would agree that Plato was an influence. The cardboard box is a vaguely interesting take on Plato's Cave - but would Halding consider that the provider of the box would be a god? (And who fed the people in it? - most of these philosophical situations neglect the practical.) But to the question. If compliance with WP:RS could be arranged, I might be willing to reverse my decision. As of now, we have an anonymous writer on the internet with no desire to be identified (sounds like a Wikipedia editor...) with no real evidence to show that he is/was really notable. Note that I use 'notable' in the Wikipedia sense. (See WP:GNG et al.) Peridon (talk) 20:36, 24 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.