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 No consensus (infested by socks, but omitting them, was no consensus anyway). Hedley 23:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Middlebrook[edit]

Apparently NN academic, but not speedy material as some claims to notability are made. Some evidence to support that, but distinctly weak; I didn't find any publications with mainstream poublishers, and my Googling leads me to believe he falls short of WP:BIO. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 11:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Verifiable, and genuinely interesting and useful. He is poublished within his field. Trollderella 16:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you just point me to a link, please? Obviously I've fallen foul of the Googlespammers as the ones I found were all crap. Thanks - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 17:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try typing '"Peter Middlebrook" Afghanistan'. Trollderella 17:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Keep it is, then, and move to the correct name. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Verifiable but borderline on notability. As for being published, I only found a few minor articles. Swegner 17:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clear vanity (see original contributor), and seems to have only published an online book. Don't think he clears the bar. -R. fiend 18:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or rather userfy, for now, as he fails WP:BIO (no mainstream publications, no more notable than the average academic). If he's really "leading", then he'll get an article in due course, when there are verifiable reasons for one. — Haeleth Talk 18:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are already verifiable reasons to keep. Political economy of Afghanistan is not a mainstream topic, that's not a reason to delete it. Trollderella 02:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Genuinely interesting and useful, although not mainstream, there are some interesting articles here. He appears to be published within his field of speciality, and his work is referred to in other online Encyclopedias. User:Amba.Tadaa 06.00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Tends to be very little coverage of non European and US political economy analysis, so this work is refreshing. I find many references to his work through Google. User:Ravi.Khan 07.12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Don't see what the problem is, political economy of Afghanitan is an important subject, with fe current Wikipedia citations. He is widely published - from what I can google!!!. User:A.Masefield 08.42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Here come the socks! Anyone care to guess how many edits the above three users have? Changing my vote to strong delete now. -R. fiend 11:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 03:26, 16 November 2005 (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.