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. Mangojuicetalk 20:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Menkin[edit]

Hmmm...biography with no assertion of notability other than that he spoke on the radio once (how many people have done that?). I would like to try to keep this neutral, but perhaps the fact that this person is the "inventor" of a "thought screen helmet" designed to stop "alien mind control" and curtail abductions deserves mention. But at any rate, this fails notability, verifiability, etc., etc., etc. Byrgenwulf 12:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Michael Menkin" gets 390 hits on Google, only 196 of which are marked as original. Several of these hits also are to different people named "Michael Menkin". This is a far cry from your claimed thousand. Also, what his father did is irrelevant to his notability (and his father doesn't even have a page). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually using just "Michael Menkin" and alien he gets 986 hits. Google Just using his name alone gets over 1200, meaning that the majority of Michael Menkins online are most likely the alien hat guy! Dwain 21:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, had it to show only English results. That said, the results are not actually that impressive. My own name gets one-tenth of what Michael Menkin gets (probably half of which are actually for me). If I used my real name more often online, it would be far greater. But does this make me notable? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 21:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not a hoax. At least, the guy really exists and he really makes those claims. I don't know if his helmets actually work, though. :) Zagalejo 18:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think that the relevant clause of WP:BIO should be interpreted as "anybody that has been interviewed". This is a weak opinion of mine. To interview somebody is vastly less notable than to have a real article on them. Hell, I've been interviewed numerous times on radio shows. I'd be the first one to put a ((db-bio)) tag on an article about myself. Also, the only reason that Menkin has been so extensively interviewed (without a non-interview article) is that he is so bizarre. Do we need an article on other tabloid headlines, like Devil Defecates on Cactus... and Sits Down ? --Storkk 01:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe you're just modest... :). I understand that interviewees are not inherently notable, but Coast to Coast AM has a very large (4.5 million people) and obsessive fanbase, and appearing as a featured guest is like a major league at-bat for any proponent of weird ideas. The guestlist on the website is basically a who's-who of conspiracy theorists, ufologists, cryptozoologists, pyschics, etc.
If we're not going to keep it as a separate article, though, may I propose merging it with tin-foil hat? At the heart of it, I guess I just don't like to see these quirky subjects get deleted, and I hope the information can find a home somewhere. Zagalejo 04:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"WE ARE glad to have discovered a website with some really useful information. At www.stopabductions.com/main.htm you can find full instructions on how to make a "thought screen helmet" that "blocks telepathic communication between aliens and human beings".
Invented by someone called Michael Menkin in 1998, the helmet uses "Velostat" shielding, and is apparently easy to make if you follow the instructions. "Aliens," we are told, "cannot immobilise people wearing thought screens nor can they control their minds or communicate with them."
This is very good news, but can we be sure it works? According to one Jon Locke, whose picture (plus helmet) appears on the site, there is no doubt. "Since trying Michael Menkin's helmet, I have not been bothered by alien mind control," he says. "Now my thoughts are my own."
And there's further proof: "Since January 2000, aliens have not taken any abductees while they were wearing thought screen helmets using Velostat shielding."
Pretty convincing -- except that Feedback, who does not wear a thought screen helmet, hasn't been abducted by aliens since January 2000 either. But perhaps there's another reason for this that we are not yet aware of."
If you don't have access to Lexis-Nexis or the actual publications, you'll just have to trust me on this one. I may not be the best editor here, but all of my edits have been made with the best intentions. I've never tried to spread falsehoods. Zagalejo 20:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, wait a minute... I'm not saying his helmet actually works, I'm saying that this guy actually exists, and that he actually makes these claims. Click on the links and do some research; there is verifiable info about this guy. And assume good faith, please; I'm not trying to pull a fast one here. Zagalejo 20:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter if his helmet actually works; the important issue is whether he's received enough attention for his claims. Zagalejo 20:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He hasn't, though. A brief mention in a couple sources saying someone's a kook isn't notability. For instance, if this guy was a musician he wouldn't even come close to notability for these mentions, so why is he notable because he's made a tin-foil hat? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, good -- these are the kinds of arguments people should be using. Although, interestingly, WP:MUSIC says that someone is notable if he/she/they " [have] been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio network". Coast to Coast AM is a nationally-broadcast radio show with over 500 affiliates, apparently the most popular American program in its time-slot, and this says that Menkin was a guest for the first half-hour of their June 20th, 2005 broadcast. Zagalejo 22:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but that deals with musicians, bands, and the like (for whom being on the radio is actually significant). WP:BIO is, in my humble opinion, not met for Menkin. --Storkk 01:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, this guy has made news on 4 continents. At the very least, we should merge the page somewhere, perhaps to tin-foil hat. Zagalejo 18:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, great work finding all those newspaper articles! Dwain 18:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, indeed. Especially considering that some of the publications in question don't seem to remember having published anything on this chap...for example, the Herald Sun, which according to Zagalejo ran a piece on Menkin last month, has no entries whatsoever in its online archive [1]. Similarly for the other publications I bothered checking. Sorry, Zagalejo. Byrgenwulf 21:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith, please.  :( I used a few other search terms besides "Michael Menkin"; for example, the Herald Sun article called him "Mike Menkin": Here's an excerpt:
SICK of being abducted by aliens just as you're settling down to watch Ricki Lake? Tired of those ugly damned creatures poking your liver and extracting seed from your gonads?
Sounds to us like you need the Thought Screen Helmet.
It's an ingenious device that American Mike Menkin says may help people who have been abducted by aliens. Not to mention those who would like to avoid the experience altogether.
Menkin, of Bellevue, a plush suburb of Seattle - and incidentally only an Apple Mac's throw from the palatial home of Bill Gates - says it works by blocking alien telepathy and mind control.
"My device consists of a leather helmet lined with layers of special conductive plastic, the same material used to prevent static electricity damage to printed circuit boards," he explains.
"When worn over the head, I believe the device may insulate an abductee from alien telepathic control.
"Its function is not proven, I realise, but a shield for blocking alien telepathic control is worth trying......"
And it goes on like that. I don't think I should copy the entire article. I also used "thought screen helmet" to find some of the hits.
Addendum: I just noticed that there was a typo on my part; the Herald Sun article was published in Augst 2000. Zagalejo 23:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Herald Sun's online archive goes back to 1990, apparently, and I searched simply for "Menkin", which means that even if they ran an article on an egg salesman named "John Menkin" something should have come up...but nothing did. I also searched The Daily Mirror, The Standard, the New Zealand Herald, and the Sydney Morning Herald.
Now, to be charitable, we could say it might just be that the newspapers themselves don't put minor, humorous back-page sort of stories on their websites. But, if this is the case, then is this guy really notable? If in retrospect his story is not one that newspapers consider important enough to put on their sites, then should Wikipedia be bothering with him.
Look, I understand the humour here. Hell, I have been chuckling about the guy all weekend. But, Wikipedia is not a hall of fame for cranks and loonies. It is an encyclopaedia. This chap is simply not a candidate for an encyclopaedic biography. While tin-foil hats, as a pop culture phenomenon, probably deserve mention, his particular brand of them (made of Velostat, not tin-foil), is in all likelihood not notable enough to be mentioned either. Byrgenwulf 06:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a subscription to the archives? The free search -for the Herald Sun, and most newspapers actually - is limited to articles from the last thirty days. In any case, the articles do appear on Factiva. I invite anyone with access to Factiva to run searches for "Michael Menkin," "Mike Menkin", and "thought screen helmet" (individually, not in combination with each other). All of the above articles should show up. Zagalejo 14:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I suppose: I don't have a subscription to the Herald Sun (why would I?)...one simply cannot be too careful, especially when dealing with a subject like this, which is apt to attract the certifiably insane; my sincere apologies for any undue insult I may have caused, Zagalejo. Nonetheless, whether or not Menkin has had a few tongue-in-cheek, pseudo-disparaging newspaper articles about him, I still maintain that that is insufficient to meet criteria of notability. I would not be averse to a (brief) mention of the "thought screen helmet" in the tin-foil hat article, either (I also enjoy the idiosyncratic humour behind this whole thing) - I just don't think that someone who makes Velostat hats to stop people being "abducted by aliens" merits a biography in an encyclopaedia. Byrgenwulf 14:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think that's a fair objection. Really, my vote was only a "weak" keep to begin with, and I'm suprised I got so caught up in this discussion. :) No worries, Zagalejo 14:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, almost all of the articles are tongue-in-cheek, but, FWIW, the Factiva hits were all unique articles. They were written by different people, as far as I can tell. I'd be perfectly content with a merge, though. Zagalejo 14:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tin-foil hat?[edit]

  • Do you think something like this could be merged into the article?
Individuals who believe they have been abducted by aliens occassionally use variants of the tin-foil hat to assuage their anxiety. Since 1998, for example, American UFO researcher Michael Menkin has widely promoted his homemade "thought screen helmets" as a means of blocking mental communication between humans and extraterrestrials. The helmets are made of 3M Velostat, and Menkin has posted assembly instructions at his website, stopabductions.com[1].
The unusual invention has made Menkin a target of tongue-in-cheek newspaper and magazine articles throughout the world [2][3]. Thane Burnett of the Toronto Sun remarked, "His thought screen helmet isn't the only thing which confounds aliens. They apparently haven't learned to use a phone directory, which is how I tracked Menkin. But when they do come for him, they won't get Michael Menkin's mind" [4]. Among his supporters, however, is the paranormal-themed radio talk show Coast to Coast AM, who featured Menkin as a serious guest on June 25, 2005[5].
  1. ^ http://www.stopabductions.com/. Retrieved 19 September 2006
  2. ^ Galland, Xavier. "Protect your mind from alien attack!". The Nation (Thailand). 3 Feburary 2003.
  3. ^ "Mind Your Head – aliens about". Sunday Herald Sun. 6 August 2000. p. 61.
  4. ^ Burnett, Thane. "Take Me to Your Readers Now". Toronto Sun. 27 June 2004. p. 18.
  5. ^ http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2005/06/20.html. Retrieved 19 September 2006.
Zagalejo 20:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is perfect. It includes some mention of Menkin's appearances in the media (both positive and negative, with statistical weight towards the tongue in cheek), is relevant and could flow nicely into the tin-foil hat entry. It seems appropriately encyclopedic, and NPOV. Nice job. I have one quibbble over one word choice, which is "target" in the phrase "has made Menking a target of..." Edhubbard 19:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about, "Because of his unusual invention, Menkin has become the subject of tongue-and-cheek tongue-in-cheek newspaper and magazine articles throughout the world"? And, looking back on it, I could probably chop off the last four words of the first sentence, since I would assume that would be obvious within the context of the article. Zagalejo 20:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(resetting indent). I think subject is better than target, and agree that there are some things that would be clearer in the context of the article. I think tongue-in-cheek is the standard phrase over tongue-and-cheek. But these are tiny details. I think that this is quite good now, and all we need is to see if the other editors who have been voting on this are pretty much in agreement, and we can go ahead and do this... Indeed, you could probably add the text you've suggested to tin-foil hat now, and then we can just see if others are in agreement to close the AfD and delete. Perhaps we give it another day, since the AfD has been pretty active? Edhubbard 20:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, tongue-and-cheek was a typo. :) Zagalejo 20:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll merge the text into tin-foil hat now; if people object, I can always take it out. Zagalejo 20:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In favor of merge:

  1. Edhubbard 07:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. At this point, I don't think it has much of a chance as an individual article, but I don't want to get rid of the information entirely. Zagalejo 14:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Good work on the paragraph above - it will make a delightful addition to tin-foil hats, indeed. Byrgenwulf 19:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'd prefer to delete (as per my comments above), but I suppose merge is ok with me too. Again, I stand by my opinion above, but since this isn't a vote, I'll say that I don't find this proposal too unreasonable. The reason I'm not very gung ho about merging is that crackpots and quacks always have some article that they could be merged into. Just in this case though, it's an article that might fit. --Storkk 23:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed to merge (keep):

Opposed to merge (delete):

Close debate?[edit]

I am assuming, since there haven't been any votes recently, that we can close this AfD, with a final decision of deleting the article. The material that Zagalejo wanted to salvage has been moved into Tin-foil hat, so there's no reason to keep this article. If no one objects in the next 24 hours, I'll close the debate, and we can have this article deleted. Edhubbard 18:17, 23 September 2006 (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.
More