The result was SPEEDY DELETE per WP:BAN, WP:CSD#G5 article created by a banned user, Verbapple ( talk · contribs) and no substantial contributions by anybody else. I will also note that the last AfD and this one appear to be heavily tainted with disruption by sock puppets and single purpose accounts. This is a WP:BLP enforcement action as well. Note diffs: this [1] [2]. Jehochman Talk 00:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC) reply
This was sent to DRV by an IP, whose comments are reproduced below. However, the last discussion was almost two years ago, and I believe the DRV was started to get around the need to create a new page for AFD. Procedural nomination only. Courcelles 11:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply
From the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 12: No consensus: Nominated for deletion for failing notability guidelines and possessing few notable sources. Subject interfered with AFD discussion by abusing sockpuppets, making a valid decision impossible. The page has remained an orphan for nearly 2 years and the few reputable sources cited mention subject only in passing. 161.253.51.49 ( talk) 22:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC) reply
each copy-and-pasted nonsense a separate consideration as if they were from multiple poeple. User:Smith Jones 23:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The major sock puppet seems to be the anonymous ip who obviously has an emotional investment in the deletion of this article. They are likely masquerading as the anonymous jones smiths above and they originally resubmitted the deletion request planning to come here and accuse the new york times and wall street journal and popular science and business week of sock puppetry, when in reality smith jones is the anonymous sockpuppet submitting requests to delete from anonymous ips after failing to get the article deleted before.
This constitutes abuse and they should be banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.4.49 ( talk) 23:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The user smith jones is now getting emotional with their "excuse me" diction. They are obviously the same sock puppet who initially tried to get this article deleted numerous times from anonymous ip addresses. The article has far, far more reputable sources than the vast majority of wiki articles on living people. The anonymous smith jones really has it in for mcgucken and it seems his hate has blinded him to the dozens of blue chip sources. Smith jones need to be investigated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.4.49 ( talk) 23:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETE per WP:BAN, WP:CSD#G5 article created by a banned user, Verbapple ( talk · contribs) and no substantial contributions by anybody else. I will also note that the last AfD and this one appear to be heavily tainted with disruption by sock puppets and single purpose accounts. This is a WP:BLP enforcement action as well. Note diffs: this [1] [2]. Jehochman Talk 00:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC) reply
This was sent to DRV by an IP, whose comments are reproduced below. However, the last discussion was almost two years ago, and I believe the DRV was started to get around the need to create a new page for AFD. Procedural nomination only. Courcelles 11:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply
From the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 12: No consensus: Nominated for deletion for failing notability guidelines and possessing few notable sources. Subject interfered with AFD discussion by abusing sockpuppets, making a valid decision impossible. The page has remained an orphan for nearly 2 years and the few reputable sources cited mention subject only in passing. 161.253.51.49 ( talk) 22:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC) reply
each copy-and-pasted nonsense a separate consideration as if they were from multiple poeple. User:Smith Jones 23:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The major sock puppet seems to be the anonymous ip who obviously has an emotional investment in the deletion of this article. They are likely masquerading as the anonymous jones smiths above and they originally resubmitted the deletion request planning to come here and accuse the new york times and wall street journal and popular science and business week of sock puppetry, when in reality smith jones is the anonymous sockpuppet submitting requests to delete from anonymous ips after failing to get the article deleted before.
This constitutes abuse and they should be banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.4.49 ( talk) 23:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply
The user smith jones is now getting emotional with their "excuse me" diction. They are obviously the same sock puppet who initially tried to get this article deleted numerous times from anonymous ip addresses. The article has far, far more reputable sources than the vast majority of wiki articles on living people. The anonymous smith jones really has it in for mcgucken and it seems his hate has blinded him to the dozens of blue chip sources. Smith jones need to be investigated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.4.49 ( talk) 23:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC) reply