Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terren Peizer


 * 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   Speedy keep The individual is clearly notable. This is among the nom's first edits as well, so I suspect a WP:COI/WP:POINT. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Terren Peizer

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

This article should either be deleted or changed to Hythiam instead. To be honest, Terren Peizer is a nobody and is one of millions of people who started companies but do not have a Wikipedia page. Even the sensationalism written up about his ties to the crook Michael Milken is unworthy of mentioning. Peizer was one of numerous people who testified against Milken, after being just as corrupt as he was when working for him. Most of the references provided are offline and cannot be found over the internet. This leads to a question of whether or not the articles were in fact written, or just made up. The only sources online are the same sources and most of them have been provided by Peizer's employess via a press release or promotion on business sites. They were also the ones who probably created this ridiculous article, as an attempt to present a resume and advertisement about their boss. Peizer himself may have even started it, as it was filled with praise and boasting.

All in all, this person is completely irrelevant and is not even worth mentioning or talking about.

Singleschmingle (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC) — User:Singleschmingle (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You seem awfully upset about this, and seem to have personal feelings on the matter. Are you sure you don't have any issues you need to address? Beeblbrox (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep As a bad faith nomination. Most of what is mentioned in the nomination is cleanup or point of view related, plus a big dose of unproven accusations and outright malice. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And something is really out of whack here, we've got a second AfD going when the first one is still ongoing... Beeblbrox (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as obviously notable. This nomination is extremely suspicious in my mind.  --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 17:38, 8 August 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.