Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monty White

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 Keep. (aeropagitica) 09:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monty White

Does not meet WP:BIO nor assert any notablity. It has been tagged for a few weeks as lacking any reason for wiki inclusion. He has four works: one is a four page article self-published, one you cannot even find a search for the ISBN, and the other two are published by unknown publishers who do not currently press/sell/ make the books available. Arbusto 04:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Arbusto 04:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. --Yuk Yuk Yec 05:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New user Arbusto 07:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, all four of White's books were found in either allbookstores.com or half.com. --Yuk Yuk Yec 06:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for joining wikipedia six days ago and expressing your thoughts, but judging from those links he's not notable. Other than a few books available used and from independent sellers it is clear his books aren't anything "notable." Nor has his notablitity been established. Also he only has four "books" if you included his 4 page self published article on dating, which he has no credentials in. Arbusto 06:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought there were guidelines about being civil and not biting newbies...... hey ho. Jcuk 23:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user's advanced knowledge of wikipedia demonstrates she/he is not a "newbie." Arbusto 01:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BLP. Monkeyman^(talk) 06:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.34.152 (talk • contribs)
Weak Keep seems like prominent UK Young Earth spokesman. Eivind 07:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep appears notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, lots of sources and borderline assertion of notability. Article is POV right now, but that can be easily fixed. Grandmasterka 17:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BLP is policy relevant to keeping WP out of legal trouble; it's not first and foremost an inclusion/deletion policy to make AfD decisions. The relevant policy is WP:BIO, and this published author who's been profiled by the BBC meets those criteria. The current article is pretty one-sided, but what's there to say - this is a physical chemist who worked on elemental-dating methods and then changed his mind, wrote some books about it, and achieved fame thereby. (Full disclosure: I think creationism's ridiculous.) -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable creationist. Btw, Ikkyu2, I'm pretty sure that White never worked with dating methods before he became a creationist. JoshuaZ 07:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks notable to me at least. --Ter e nc e Ong 06:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- notable although perhaps better off not being.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Monkeyman. Kuzaar 13:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No vote, in light of Ikkyu's comment. Kuzaar 14:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, seems notable. (Insert joke about "dating methods" here) JIP | Talk 14:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to meet minimal notability criteria, particularly due to BBC coverage. Monicasdude 15:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep notable Funky Monkey 17:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep only because of the press coverage; his vanity-press output desn't cut it. ProhibitOnions 20:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability established. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:54, 14 March 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.