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. On a side note, thanks to everyone who participated in this discussion. However I beg you in the future to please be pithy in your comments. Confine yourself to what is germane to the discussion and avoid posting walls of text. Make your point(s), but be brief! Ad Orientem (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The claim to notability is as a "media, entertainment and technology entrepreneur and inventor"; however, this does not appear to be backed up by reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. A closer examination of the references show citations to the websites of companies he is affiliated with; his own websites containing primary source material, qontinuum.org or wildernessofmirrors.org; jfk conspiracy websites such as jfklancer.com and maryferrell.org; or links referring to the KGB or Oleg Nechiporenko that do not even mention him. There are a few brief mentions in reliable sources in March 1992 that note he was the agent for a group of former KGB agents that wanted to sell their stories: [1][2]. If there was an article for the KGB Foreign Intelligence Veterans Association, I would support a redirect to that. Location (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Googling on three different WWW search engines reveals no reputable secondary sources. Έλενα Γιαννάκου (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (+Edit|Merge - see new note below): Googling "Brian Litman KGB", Brian D. Litman +KGB or even "Brian Litman MP3 or "Brian Litman +MP3" shows many 'secondary sources' which in the coming days we will seek to identify herein for the debate (beyond what already is referenced). There is another "Brian Litman" who is in finance at Tribune Media Company (which inflates the desired search somewhat). There is also a "Brian Litman" who is some kind of self-help guru. Upon deeper scrutiny multiple references on the true Subject can be found. Look close and scroll more carefully.
In the question of relations to KGB Colonel Oleg Nechiporenko, Litman's connection to him was made absolutely clear by Nechiporenko himself. This is in the preface (page ix) of his book "Passport to Assassination" [3]. Nechiporenko -by his own hand- credited its existence to Litman [4]. This, while also mentioning Litman's contractual relations with about 500 other KGB spies, -abundantly referenced- (L.A. Times, Chicago Tribune, Newsweek, etc.).
The omission from Nechiporenko's own Wikipedia Article is merely a hole in the complete historical record. Indeed, it demonstrates that Wikipedia is not infallable - but nevertheless fixable. May we also add that this history is 24 years old - and long before the Internet was as developed as it is today. Many references would have had to be sourced with difficulty by the Article originators.
This editor will try to improve the Nechiporenko article - as it is missing important details. We can also write small history of FIVA (Foreign Intelligence Veterans Association). Probably just a "stub".
Let us also not only focus on Litman's generation-old KGB relationships. As we write this, we are listening to MP3 music on my PC with an older version of Winamp. (Because iTunes eats too much RAM!). Litman co-founded the Advanced Multimedia Products (AMP) firm with fellow (and "notability"-unchallenged Wikipedia subject) Tomislav Uzelac. AMP later became PlayMedia Systems (also needs an Article) and licensed AMP to the guys who slapped a Windows UI on it to create "Win-Amp" (again Winamp article needs clarity). This was the player which fostered the MP3 music era. Is being the co-founder of the firm which created the MP3 engine powering a lot of today's music not "notable"?
So, we would argue that Litman's notability is as much a function of his impact on digital music as was his facilitation of the release of KGB archival material on Lee Harvey Oswald via his Article-defined relations with KGB. We can try to address editorial concerns and list herein additional supportive references. But again, the 90's was not known for server farms loaded with the depth of linkable material we have today - and it seems the existing list of documentary proof is already pretty extensive. That said, in a way it is good that this was flagged in that it may stimulate enriching the factual content of related Articles.Огнемет (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— We have previously made numerous small edits, in the past, without registration. Determined we may as well create a persona - given how evermore interesting the World has become :) Огнемет (talk • contribs).
We would like to kindly request an extension of the debate period, by another week, in order to get clearer consensus and to get arguments from other -uninvolved- editors. Огнемет (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes AfDs are relisted when 7 days was not enough to gather enough attention. —PaleoNeonate - 01:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Of interest is the claim at the Tomislav Uzelac article (also linking to a self-published personal site). [5] makes no mention and the previously existing AMP (MP3 software) article was PROD-deleted for lack of notability. In case this article passes AfD as keep or no-consensus, there is much to fix with it (although I admit that AfD is not a replacement for fixing)... It is important to consider the "significant coverage" and "reliable" points of WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED. —PaleoNeonate - 01:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Erratum: To publicly call the publishing of computer scientist Tomislav Uzelac's 1996 "readme.txt" legal page as emanating from a "self-published personal site" is not factually correct.
Worse, it could cast an ugly light on the integrity of Uzelac, now a successful Steam game developer [1]. I don't think the Editor in question intended that.
To wit: the Editor cited [2] and incorrectly represented it as a "self-published personal site".
Uzelac is a Croatian. As his Wikipedia entry shows, he graduated from the University of Zagreb - not Utah. See: [3].
In fact, this URL was drawn from the legally-required credits page in the distribution for an early version of WinAmpcreated at the University of Utah. UTAH.EDU.
It was either posted by WinAmp creators Dmitry Boldyrev or Justin Frankel. Windows & AMP = WinAmp. Both Boldyrev and Frankel were the students who implemented AMP with a Windows interface. This readme.txt page was legally bound to be posted in the application if used non-commercially.
So now one wonders, whether this good Editor, before publicly publishing this comment as material evidence for a "Delete", might have voted differently had he taken the time to more carefully check the "Wayback Machine" URL.
Accordingly, to correct the historical record and address further concerns, I took the initiative to modestly update and enhance the Mario Kovač and Tomislav Uzelac Wikipedia entries. I have made independently-sourced citational improvements.
I also implore Editors and Administrators to please take note of brief supportive references from these articles on music technology / MP3 history: [4][5].
AMP, (whose own article was inexplicably deleted in 2009) had its origins as Uzelac's student thesis for an MP3 Decoder under the tutelage of University of Zagreb computer science head mentor Kovač.[6].
Kovač was eventually introduced to Litman by Kovač's star pupil Uzelac. Together they formed PlayMedia, where they jointly collaborated on projects referenced in the Litman Article and were jointly granted a United States Patent for sponsored music distribution [7].
And please kindly take notice of the attribution of Inventor to Litman (along with PlayMedia co-founders Uzelac, Kovač and Runje).
In any case, the Uzelac article certainly needs improvement. And I would also submit that AMP should not have been summarily deleted 7 years before and the notable firm PlayMedia justly should go from Red to Blue should some engaged digital music historian wish to write an Article.Огнемет (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I said personal site, I meant e-novation.info, not hpux.cs.utah.edu. —PaleoNeonate - 20:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Erratum 2: I am very sorry, PaleoNeonate, but I am afraid something may have confused you.
(1) I think you mean the precise URL on the Uzelac website which is not merely [1] but rather [2]
(2) If the intended URL above is opened you will find a Croatian language website for the "Vidi e-novation Contest".
(3) As simple Google English to Croatian conversion clearly shows that this website is for a multi-corporation sponsored Croatian IT Hero-type contest, sponsored by a zillion European tech firms like T-Mobile's Croatian Telecom, Microsoft, Ericsson, ad nauseum.
Uzelac is referenced therein ... because he is something of a national hero to Croatians. Kind of a Nikola Tesla "lite".
The Google EN to HR translation referencing Uzelac is:
For example, the public is poorly known fact that Tomislav Uzelac, a student of the Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, invented and patented the first MP3 decoder and thus allow the popularization of MP3 players around the world. The goal of the Vidi e-novation awards in Croatia stimulate inventions just such discoveries, present them to domestic and international public as rounded products.
But by this, I submit that you actually have supported a Keep argument. Uzelac is a Croatian national hero[3] (Control+F Uzelac).
And Litman was his single, original business-managing partner in an important early technology that facilitated the global proliferation of MP3 music.
(And just for the record, the Croatian website was slightly wrong (or mis-translated), Litman and Uzelac never patented MP3, they marketed a very-efficient, but copyrighted variant of the MP3 ISO Standard.) Огнемет (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Fellow Editors (and Administrators): As I have spent more time reviewing this rather long Article, the essential editor in me concludes that a rational solution would be to engage in some skillful surgery on the Article. This, to avoid "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". Some Siamese Twins need to be separated here. I would propose to do what first submitter User:Arrant Errant might have done at the get go.
To wit:
(1) Tighten the Article and delete extraneous information.
(2) Address reliability and relevance of source materials.
(3) Identify relevant content from several paragraphs and either Delete or Merge into new or existing Articles|Stubs. For example, Kostikov, Yatskov, Oleg Nechiporenko, Semichastny, Oswald in Mexico City, PlayMedia, Napster, etc. (JFK's 100th got me thinking again and I am conducting research on digital music - which indeed, brought me to this Article.)
(4) Ensure conformance with Wikipedia policies (to the degree I can decode its 'military-like' acronyms).
If other interested Administrators or Editors do not object, I would undertake this over the next week or so. Naturally, all Edits would be addressable by the Community. As an old Article tweaker, but new Registrant, I would welcome the expert commentary of others. Огнемет (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"I would undertake this over the next week or so" Considering WP:COI (evidence of which is WP:SPA), you ideally should not edit the article yourself, but request changes on its talk page... —PaleoNeonate - 06:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 08:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Thank you SoWhy for according more time to the discussion.
(2) Apologies regarding protocol re: placing my recommendation. As I have stated, I am new and not yet facile with this AfD activity.
"You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period. Indeed, if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article (noting in the discussion that you have done so if your edits are significant ones)."
This is why I suggested that I tighten the article. I believe it worthy, but ... obese.
Secondly, the directive also stated (to this newbie):
* Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion (both during the discussion and when closing using semi-automated closing scripts). If you do this, please note it on the deletion discussion page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing administrator).
Editors: I was merely following Wikipedia's own guidelines as I understood them to apply to my proposal. It was not my intention to rain on anyone's parade.
(3) Location I understand that you don't find the Article subject Litman interesting.
And, as the Article referenced, so did Chairmen of the Soviet KGB.
Our differing perspectives notwithstanding, as I have said - I am new. As explained in (2) above, I followed what I interpreted as Wikipedia directions.
I was embarrassed to appear recalcitrant via all-caps text at 04:07, 12 June 2017 [2] regarding the re-emplacement of the Wikipedia-directed "Advisory".
What had happened is that I had multiple browser tabs open while editing. After a few minutes, I got a false reading that this "Top Placement" I thought was mandated - didn't "catch". I was not trying to eclipse you. It was a browser cache deception.
Thank you PaleoNeonate for your advice on 06:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that I am conducting research for a book about the "Digital Music Wars" of the late '90's and early 2000's. I found utility via Wikipedia from the Article in question - and numerous others like: Gerry Kearby, Phil Wiser, Larry S. Miller and PressPlay, who were really notable in digital music's development but were in the shadows of the Steve Jobs's, Sean Parker's and Shawn Fanning's of the world. (Litman's JFK and KGB bits were simply a bonus). I hope interview to him in the future. Огнемет (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In case this article gets deleted (I'm not the one who will decide this), if you want you can download its full source code here before it does. —PaleoNeonate - 01:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that tip PaleoNeonate. :) Having become more familiar with the inner-workings of Wikipedia, I did that - along with making a plain .pdf.
You Said: "Googling on three different WWW search engines reveals no reputable secondary sources."
I Reply: Yes. There is a huge problem when using search engines. They yield far few hits with <"Brian D. Litman +MP3"> instead of the superior <"Brian Litman" +MP3> or <"Brian Litman" +KGB>. Please try it. Litman's middle initial is best - dropped.
The German Connection: I located additional WP:RS material to further address Notability objections. These relate to Litman's negotiations with German media colossus Bertelsmann.
See: [1][2][3] (Google Translate for German works clear enough).
These WP:RS materials should be included the Napster section of the Litman Article and/or Napster's own. One clearly references Litman and the other - his firm. These show international notability in Europe's biggest market.
Other International Recognition: Litman is internationally notable enough to be wished "Happy Birthday" (and appear in alongside Billy Joel) in Haaretz, Israel's most prominent newspaper[4] (see very bottom).
By the way, I have a question: I consider both Litman and Phil Wiser to be equal digital music innovators. Mr. Wiser is highly accomplished. Can someone kindly explain to me the secret to the endurance of Wiser's Article? It has navigated through at least 40 edits in Wikipedia since 2007. Look at it. 10 years later. It uses superlatives like "He ... is amazing." And further cites as as a Source: "His Own Son". Yet after 9 months, Mr. Litman's Article gets "no quarter". And understanding the motivation behind the desire to commit this information to an early death truly piques my curiosity.
Sorry if long-winded, but Wikipedia is the de facto repository of human knowledge now. And as Hippocrates said: First, do no harm".
Here are yet more independent third party sources to address Location's objections (I have located scores - 17 years after the fact):
I hope to wind down my defenses for the worthiness of the Article with some conclusions about the Litman - JFK - KGB dynamic and discuss the issue of the etiology of primary sources cited - and why they may be used in a case like this (if I understood the WP policies correctly).
I am glad I found myself researching PlayMedia and Litman on 5 June.
Delete The page when I first saw it made implied accusations of him of being a spy, repeatedly, with no secondary sources supporting the claim. Apart from that, there's no claim of notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Power~enwiki (talk): I am afraid I don't know how you arrived at this conclusion, the article merely stated common Soviet Intelligence operational procedure concerning foreigners conducting business with organizations at the governmental or Party CPSU levels. But, your time spent with editorial improvement are noted and appreciated. (And I kindly ask you to leave my legitimate response to you here on the AfD talk page which must certainly be OK.) litman_bd (talk) litman_bd (talk) 02:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FURTHER:
Located here: User:Litman bdUser talk:Litman bd or exactly [1] is the text which Power~enwiki reverted and indicated to me was "improperly placed". I am confused. The [i] banner and "Welcome" did not indicate that article subjects were banned from commented on their own AfDs nor defined a restriction in length. Is this not an open forum?
I have honored Powers' direction and placed my explanation and defense of the situation on my own talk page at: I would attempt a revert but per Power, I am apparently missing something. Will not revert against more experienced Editor's will. Asking all judicious editors to kindly review [2]. I apologize for any breach of protocol and will seek {Administrator} help. See also explanatory comment to AfD initiator: User:Location
Comment several comments in this thread are by now-banned sockpuppet accounts. I still support deleting this article, per it failing WP:BLP. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- based on original research largely cited to primary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2017 (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.