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. This was a close and contntous one as evidenced by both the volume of discussion and the reluctance of admins (including myself yestarday) to close it before now. The conflict of interest concerns are grounds for rewriting but do not speak to whether the article should exist in the first place. At least one editor !voting keep suggested that the article could exist but not as written. There is no reason to delete such an article unless there are BLP or libel issues.

The personal attacks both here and on the article's talk page are reprehensible, but ultimately irrelvent to the notibility of the subject. I find the notability argument weak, but sufficient. Likewise the !votes narrowly come out in favor or retention. I think, in the end, the result should be clear. Hopefully, both sides can come together and produce an article that does not have the problems of the current version. --Selket ^Talk 23:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Mark Hanau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

WP:COI, "An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by a band member or the manager." The article about Mark Hanau is written and edited by someone saying he's Mark Hanau (see comments in user contributions) and using Mark Hanau's website, aimultimedia.com. Editor has also edited or created numerous pages w/subjects he has a close personal connection to like airconditioning, saturnalia, curved air, liquid light shows, John Vickers, and Academy of Live and Recorded Arts. WP:NOTE Article does not establish notability of subject as per guidelines "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". WP:VER, claims not verifiable, some claims conflict with published accounts. Editor/subject uses [artistopia.com] as a source in this article and in other edited articles, but artistopia.com has Wikipedia as source. Before I deleted it, (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NME_Awards&oldid=209579910), subject placed an image of an invitation to an awards event and represented it as an actual award. WP:SOAPBOX, Aimulti/Hanau is engaging in self-aggrandizement I think by exaggeration, has claimed to have co-founded Paul McCartney's McCartney Productions, established a school (ARLA), won awards, and met "Berthold (sic) Brecht" with no support. WP:NOTMYSPACE, editor using Wikipedia to showcase himself. WP:PSTS, editor using primary sources without secondary source backup, such as a college prospectus to establish he "founded" the college 'tho secondary sources give different story. WP:OR, editor/subject scans primary documents and submits them via his company website, aimultimedia.com. WP:Living Many, like example Aimulti claims an actor is his daughter without source. RetroS1mone (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did so with my daughters full permission. She is as angry about this slur as I am.Aimulti (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please keep in mind that disclosure of personal information for any reason is in violation of Wikipedia's living persons policies. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to RetroS1mone as 'she'. May I ask how you knew this editor was female?Aimulti (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I don't, but the name "Simone" is female AFAIK. One could also ask why you assumed the editor was male, but the gender of your critic is irrelevant. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets stop pretending. I know who you are. Keeponkeepingon is your usual handle and you have hounded me for years on Yahoo Answers etc, etc. I took me I while to figure it out (must be getting old). Feel free to deny it (as I am sure you will) but we both know what this is about. Quite frankly I don't really care one way or another now that I know the nature of this action. Enjoy yourself. Aimulti (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "Keeponkeepingon" and I do not have any knowledge of "Keeponkeepingon." I have never written on Yahoo Answers. You are making unsubstantiated claims. I have defended your notability and tried to help improve the sourcing in your autobiography. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can only comment on the section of the article regarding band management and picture discs, which I find informative, well-referenced, and certainly notable enough to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. I have no knowledge of Mark Hanau's life or career outside his involvement with Curved Air and Saturnalia but feel that to delete the entire article is extreme overkill and that a less-heated debate would enable the rest of the article to be brought up to the required standard. RGCorris (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RGCorris, I agree with you that Mark Hanau's contribution to picture discs may be sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia with appropriate documentation. I will leave it to others to decide whether Hanau should have a biography article or should, rather, have his information merged into the other relevant articles. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

discussion moved to Talk - Corvus cornix_talk 18:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motives are irrelevant. The discussion here is whether or not this article meets Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Take extraneous discussion elswhere, it has no bearing on this discussion. I am moving the off-topic arguments to the Talk page. Corvus cornix_talk 18:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did I provide a reference (the NME 1971 awards issue of NME), I also provided a scan of the actual invitation. NME only invited people to the awards who had won one. It was not like a Hollywood event, just a small reception room, some press and the presentation committee. Tony Blackburn (DJ) presented the awards. I have requested a back issue (the 1971 awards issue) from NME and also asked them to confirm Mark Hanau was the winner. How much more can you reference something? Wikipedia only requires a reference and I provided that and more. How many Wikipedia entries provide such solid references? Do I need Mark Hanau's DNA on the award and carbon dating? This is getting absurd!

Aimulti (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aimulti, I have deleted the personal contact information you provided. Whether you are Sasha Hanau's father, as you claim to be, or not, Wikipedia prohibits disclosure of personal information. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am confused. Not that it is directly relevant to the question of whether this article should be deleted or not, but near the top of this page, it is stated that the information on Sasha was mentioned with the consent of aimulti's daughter. But here, it is stated specifically that Sasha is not aimulti's daughter. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha is Mark Hanau's daughter. Your link does not depute that. It was making fun of the absurd assertion she is not. I will add copy of her birth cert., as soon as it arrives from England. Sasha was willing to have her phone number listed and to confirm this in person but Wikipedia does not allow that. Her birth cert. is the best I can do. I would hardly claim to be her father, on Wikipedia, if I was not.Aimulti (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, Toddst1 and I have referred you to WP materials on what is acceptable as documentation. Please do not post anyone's birth certificate or other personal information. Your daughter (or your parents, for that matter) has nothing to do with your notability, is not mentioned as your daughter in any reliable sources, and does not belong in this article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did I provide a reference from Kent Library naming the 'managers' of ALRA. They use the term for directors but also an image of the school prospectus showing Mark Hanau was Chairman of the Board (by law this information must be correct (Companies Act) and false information is a criminal act). In addition, every prospectus up to 1997 and all school stationary confirm this. In addition to that the company registary is public domain and can be easily checked. http://www.companies-house.gov.uk/toolsToHelp/findCompanyInfo.shtml

In addition every single issue of the weekly newspaper, Stage and Television Today (UK) has display advertisements for ALRA naming Mark Hanau as Chairman of the Board (from 1984 to 2001)

Aimulti (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provided three solid references (Newspaper and two University archives) showing that Mark Hanau's parents both worked with Brecht in East Berlin when Mark was a child. Removed line saying Mark met him (as this cannot be referenced) but who can doubt you meet someone who is working with your parents for over two years in a closed society like post war East Berlin? Aimulti (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I will not vote on this deletion since I have been involved in editing the article, but I should note that since Retrosimone made her AfD post, Aimulti responded by disclosing the personal information of a third party whom he claims is his daughter, as well as additional unverified information on other third parties, here and on his Talk page ostensibly for verification purposes. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong delete - Per WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:Personal information, WP:MUSIC, WP:VER and WP:NOTMYSPACE. asenine ^{say what?} 16:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - while a bit high on puffery, certainly Mr. Hanau seems notable enough for an article. Has references to some reliable sources, some less reliable sources, and some facts need sources. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: Super high on puffery and most of the citations don't support Hanau's involvement. I started trying to clean up the article, removing errant citations that didn't support the article on Hanau, but quickly came to the conclusion that the article would be better deleted. If he's notable (probably is), start over and with proper citations that support relevant statements with reliable sources. Toddst1 (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have to express concern regarding the discussion of this AFD which has turned more into the type of thing you'd expect to see on the article's talk page or at WP:RFC and some of the discussion is starting to ring WP:BLP alarm bells that have nothing to do with the article at hand. Also, COI states "preferably", it doesn't ban articles written by the subject. In fact I'm pretty sure there's a wikipolicy saying they're welcome as long as they have sources, etc etc. I can't cast an informed opinion as to the viability of this article as I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter. 23skidoo (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A quick, cursory search of the databases of the Montgomery County, Md. Public Library databases shows one article mentioning a different Mark Hanau (managing director of an investment firm). A search of news.google.com revealed no results. A search of scholar.google.com revealed 6210 results; within the first 10 of these results, there is a link to a patent for a method of manufacturing audio and video discs. Finally, if the subject of the article wants to be deleted, then I'd vote for a weak "delete" (but if User:Aimulti is, in fact, Mr. Hanau, then it would appear from the debate that the opposite is true). 69.140.152.55 (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ALRA is in LONDON, England. (Not. Montgomery County, Maryland). Simply check the public record on-line data base. I provided a link as a reference. Direct link. http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/8d44684a52dcc89a24cdbbd0d9d3c8f2/compdetails. The information costs $1. I will buy it a post a link.Aimulti (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. References available to online search do not at this time appear to support claims in article. If offline references can be verified there may be a possibility of retention after rewrite to match those sources. Some direct claims, however, such as the naming of Curved Air, are directly contradicted by available sources. --Dhartung | Talk 21:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed to have named Curved Air. Francis Monkman did. I simply claimed that I added Sonja (she confirms that on her page). Aimulti (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A notable person and no reason to doubt anyone's good faith. BUT 2 pieces of artwork are copyrighted by Mark Hanau, we will have to take steps to confirm that User Aimulti has the right to license them. And moreover this user should not be allowed to edit their article anymore: if necessary they should be blocked from doing so. Sorry Mark, but if you can't see that you're too personally involved, everyone else can. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears that this opinion was canvassed. See User_talk:Simonxag#Your_request_and.. Toddst1 (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia ban contributors asking for each other's support ? RGCorris (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CANVAS: "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive." Aimulti engaged in a subcategory of canvassing known as "campaigning." He selectively notified at least two editors who agreed with him on other issues or whom he had assisted with other requests and asked them to give his autobiography a thumbs up. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Mark Hanau's involvement with Curved Air and Saturnalia and the picture discs is sufficient to confirm notability. Sensible editing of inappropriate parts of the entry - with properly-explained reasons for doing so - would deal with most of the areas complained of. RGCorris (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per all above. COI issues are a concern though. Stifle (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong delete - Per WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:Personal information, WP:MUSIC, WP:VER and WP:NOTMYSPACE. Also, see Mark on AIDS Myth Exposed, planning covert operations^[1] against wikipedia. (http://groups.msn.com/aidsmythexposed/activism.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=34105&LastModified=4675672689297989029 )—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocontroversy (talk • contribs) 19:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT ON ABOVE. Your link shows no such thing. Aids Myth Exposed does not even have a member with that name. I checked. I also note Nocontroversy is yet another member who has only edited on the topic of 'AIDS' (except one small ski edit). Funny how everyone voting for delete has the same edit history. Aimulti (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aimulti and Nocontroversy, please restrict your comments to discussion of this article. What Mark said under what pseudonym where is irrelevant here. Thank you, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note you (Keepcalmandcarryon) started the thread referenced above. QUOTE: -From: keepcalmandcarryon (Original Message) Sent: 4/26/2008 11:44 AM I'm sure y'all have noticed that, despite its claim to maintain a "neutral point of view", Wikipedia's articles relating to AIDS dissidence are biased (see for example the entry on Celia Farber). In honor of Rethinking AIDS day I am going to make time to do some editing and adding of needed references, and I encourage others to do the same! THIS WHOLE THING IS BEGINNING TO STINK MORE AND MORE. Aimulti (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP This article is heavily refrenced and does not meet the deletion policy of wikipedia. None of the events or facts are exagerated, and all of the topics are historic and should be kept on wikipedia. All the links and refrences checked out. It seems that the users that have put this page up for deletion have a personal vendetta with the author and should be excluded on editing this article, as they appear to be editing with an extreme bias. 75.83.214.6 (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is believed that this WP:SPA is a sockpuppet of aimulti (talk · contribs). Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Aimulti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddst1 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 15 May 2008

THAT IS A TOTAL LIE. Aimulti (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see talk page, "Elephant in the Room." Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT. I did not ask this person to get involved UNLIKE the members of DAG Exposed (MSN Group) who have organized this campaign against me. Aimulti (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The relentless promotion of this article by possibly COI-affected editors makes it hard to get a clear view of the subject matter. There is a large reference list, but the criterion for inclusion there must have been set very low. A serious full-length review of Mark Hanau's work in a reliable source might persuade me to change my vote. If the article is kept, a lot of puffery will need to be removed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT. If this REALLY was about references than may I ask why the Mark Hanau bio with over 30 is the target of so much attention? Compare it to the vastly longer article: - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Mullins_(musician) with not a single reference. This same situation is common throughout Wikipedia. Seems like a double standard or could the motive be as I have claimed? Aimulti (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP. The REAL objection is a fanatical vendetta by members of a special interest group. Every article I have contributed has been targeted. A good example is Peace News. This article was totally original in content (even the paper's web site had no history). Well referenced and had no 'self promotion' as these people claim whenever they can. It was targeted simply because I contributed it. The same is true of several other articles. A PURE HATE CAMPAIGN - Plain and simple! Aimulti (talk) 21:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aimulti I tried to explain you twice the copyright problem. [1] but you are not listening. At Peace News you copied directly from the Brock archives [2]. Thats not "totally original in content". Its plagiarism. So much it puts all your stuff in doubt. Every edit I made is from copyright or plagiarism or POV. RetroS1mone (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Brock provided that material to the library service for the sole purpose of providing a history of Peace News. I only referenced a few facts from the archive and the rest was from other sources. You are using every trick in the book to target my editions. If I don't use referenced material you delete it and if I do you still delete it. No article on Wikipedia is possible on this basis as you well know. I could tear Wikipedia apart using your criteria for deletion.

I don't care anymore what you do as I have decided NEVER again to contribute to Wikipedia or even look at it. I was suckered back last time but that was a VERY silly error on my part. With you and your little gang of thugs hounding me, I am wasting my time here. You are a really vicious and sick lady and nothing you do will change what I have achieved in my life (or am about to achieve). I now hope that this final article is deleted so you and your bullyboy/bullygirl buddies have nothing left to vandalize. In short, GO TO HELL. (Hope you get me banned for that comment - I am sure you can). Aimulti (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aimulti you copied section from the Hugh Brock archives. Not "referenced a few facts". Same what you did with John Vickers and other plagiarism I found. You have an agenda at wikipedia to change AIDS info and the peace news and the rest is to make your self an established editor. You said it yourself on your Paul King account at the AIDS myth cite. So you don't care enough about those articles to do a good job you just copy. A good strategy but not what Wikipedia is for. RetroS1mone talk 15:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:VER and WP:RS. Although the article "looks" good, so many of the cited sources are questionable that it's hard to imagine the article really establishes independent notability of Mr. Hanau. The use of primary sources is particularly troublesome as the general policy is for people NOT to create or substantially contribute to articles about themselves. It is important for us to always keep in mind that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. These sources are - especially taken together - not sufficient to meet this bar, especially for a WP:BLP. Notes - I read the article and checked the majority of its sources to establish my position. I did this and decided my position before reading the controversy which appears on this page (most of which I ignored anyway). (Having read the nom, I was aware of the accusation that it is largely self-edited.) In addition, per the template near the top, I was not solicited to look at this page; rather, it was the last WP:AFD left for its date.  Frank  |  talk  18:09, 21 May 2008 (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.