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. Wizardman 20:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Linden[edit]

This article seems to be part of Charles Linden's promotional marking for his method to treat anxiety disorders. There is also a significant lack of reliable sources wanted by WP:BLP. Most sources that exist on the internet are published by the subject of the article. Absentis 02:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would've said just tag for now and give it a couple months to see if adequate references can be added, but content as written definitely is too commercial and unencyclopedic. Tendancer 02:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only part of any encyclopedic value is the criticism section. Everything else reads like an ad, and fails to site a single credible source. — Zioroboco 03:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Biased, and unencyclopedic. --H irohisat ^Talk 03:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject may be notable, true - but the bias and advertising inherent to article place it beyond help. A fresh, unbiased start is warranted. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 03:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Articles that read like a résumé give me anxiety disorders. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Number 5 7 11:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he advertises himself. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure I see the problem with this article. Thanks to the sourced criticism that the nominator added before nominating it to deletion it reads as a rather well-written article about a vaguely notable unqualified mental health self-help writer with fringe theories. It certainly doesn't seem biased, or appear to be an advert. Yes, the parts written by User:Charleslinden1 may be somewhat biased, but he hasn't edited the article for several months now, and it seems relatively free of self-promotion now. As to whether this means it should be kept or not, I'm not sure, but I am pretty sure that some of the deletion concerns above should be taken with a pinch of salt. JulesH 12:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the fact he fails WP:BIO horribly, this article also has a bad case of WP:COI, since the creator is Charleslinden1. Jauerback 14:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.