Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon Winer

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 of the debate was delete Almost unanimous concensus amongst people not the subject of this article. W.marsh 22:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leon Winer

Notice - - I have revised the page. This renders all of the comments irrelevant. Like beating a dead horse, you know. Leon Winer, Feb. 12, '06

Notability only marginally established through mention of "book" authorship, which turns out to be a 12-page university publication. However, my main concern is that the article is self-authored and therefore probable vanity. See Wikipedia:Vanity_page for more information. --Alan Au 00:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. That article is a thinly veiled advertisment, Mr. Winer fails our notability requirements by a wide margin. Mstroeck 00:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Royboycrashfan 00:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, and too many external links. —Last Avenue (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files Royboycrashfan 01:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete How do you know it is "self-authored" - there is no proof? Nevertheless, it is still vanity, so delete. --M@thwiz2020 01:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non noteable person, and also and advertisment. Section9 02:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Last Avenue & Royboycrashfan. -- Krash (Talk) 02:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Avi 02:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Clear Keep. Plainly not a vanity article; original author contributed to many related articles and did not insert references to Winer, as would be expected of vanity author. Subject is considered notable for professional activities as reported by external media [1][2] [3] , particularly for role in promoting greater employee influence on 401K plan investments (a subject of great interest to many who are familiar with such enterprises as Enron). Also presented papers/led discussions at international professional conferences [4]. Another AfD nomination without appropriate checking. Monicasdude 02:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Actually, if you check the other edits, you should realize that they are almost universally linkspam to Lwiner's personal site. However, if you would like to rewrite the article as a non-vanity piece, feel free to do so. --Alan Au 04:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Response. You're right about Winer being the principal author of the article, and I failed to catch that a few of the edits in the author's history went to the user page rather than the article. But none of the vanity aspects of the article outweigh Winer's lead role in a newsworthy event -- the 401(k) control controversy, which was treated as notable by several external sources. Bad behavior by the subject of an article on Wikipedia doesn't justify the deletion of an article on a notable subject, even though his notability may be in a very narrow field. Monicasdude 05:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Monicasdude, if this guy was of any importance, surely more than 100 websites would mention him. EdGl 03:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Section9. --Aaron 03:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Certainly appears to be self-authored, compare User:Lwiner. The history of that user page is primarily by Lwiner (talk · contribs) and 68.173.184.201 (talk · contribs), the latter being the primary editor of Leon Winer (history of article). Their contribs are fairly similar, and seem primarily to be reasonably good edits though with a propensity towards advertising-ish links. User space is appropriate for what appears in the article, which essentially duplicates the user page already. Lacrimosus (talk · contribs) has already spoken to Lwiner (talk · contribs) about the appearance of vanity; encouraging Winer to continue editing while keeping those guidelines in mind would be helpful. -- Jonel | Speak 04:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for including the user links; I neglected to put those in the original nomination, but the edit histories are indeed what I used to infer authorship. --Alan Au 04:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I figured you probably had, but Monicasdude (talk · contribs) thought the checking was inadequate so I figured I'd make the checking obvious. I've seen plenty of really poorly researched nominations, and this wasn't even close to being part of that category in my opinion. -- Jonel | Speak 05:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fathering notable children does not make one notable in and of itself. Daniel Case 04:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn vanity.Blnguyen 05:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Don't waste our time with this nonsense.--God of War 06:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- per all the excellent arguments above. Reyk 09:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable vanity ad. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete an obvious case of vanispamcruftisement. Count the links, friends. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Maustrauser 12:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, 284 google hits, this article being #2, does not seem important enough for an article. Elfguy 13:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity & external links galore. Death Eater Dan 19:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). AndyZ 01:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Note related articles created by Winer (using at least two usernames, Lwiner and Lwiner9), include Strategic Creative Analysis, Strategic Creative Analysis (SCAN) and Objectives in Strategic Planning. Also Lwiner9, which I already speedied. Rd232 ^talk 12:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Continues to fail notability test. --Maxamegalon2000 04:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please Note. I have revised my page. It now includes the fact that I have published 100 articles and papers that were peer-reviewed in the double-blind process. Also, about all the excitement displayed above about my linking to my website: If I have a done a lot of important original work, who am I supposed to link to, the ignorant hacks who keep quoting each other and have not had a new idea in their entire lives?? See Leon Winer. Lwiner 21:19, 14 February 2006 (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.