Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Talbott (4th nomination)

David Talbott

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/David Talbott
• Articles for deletion/David Talbott (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/David Talbott (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/David Talbott (4th nomination)

David Talbott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This WP:FRINGEBLP has been up for deletion before, but there was some confusion in the past as to what qualified as a decent source for this article. We need to find independent sources -- that is sources that are not connected with the author and are not in-and-of-themselves WP:FRINGE. If you go through the lists of sources, you will find that there is one and only one source that rises to this level: Palmer's Perilous Planet Earth. This book mentions the author in a list exactly once.

It's also fairly clear that this person does not pass the WP:AUTHOR requirements for notability in that fashion. jps (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment Seems to fail WP:AUTHOR and GNG. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete per Nom. Trusting Nom on triviality of that first reference. Certainly, to read links on page or look up these theories is to wade into a black swamp of crank pseudo-science. I suppose that cranks can be notable, but I cannot find that Talbott has gained notability outside a small, fringy bunch of fellow cranks, not in reliable or mainstream sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Article appears to be a coat rack for the subject's psuedo-scientific theories. As far as I can tell the sources appear to be mostly Fringe and severely fail WP:RS. While it is possible that the subject might be notable, as it stands the article fails WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. Much better sourcing, coupled with a complete rewrite will be needed to salvage this article. And thus far I have not been able to find enough RS coverage to ring the notability bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• delete no significant coverage in reliable third party sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment on the re-nomination: This si the fourth nomination. The first was made by Nondistinguished, the second by ScienceApologist and the current one by jps. It should be noted that these are three incarnations of the same editor. This repeated renomination in the hope of eventual AfD-fatigue seems to be dangerously close to an abuse of process. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

While I take your point, the persistent efforts by crank devotees of truly fringe pseudo-science is also a kind of abuse of process, I mean that a handful of cranks can put up an article sourced only to a small cluster of non-notable self-published bunk, and keep it up through multiple AFDs, or through the inattention of editors who, rightly, devote long hours to writing, sourcing and maintaining good articles on real topics.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• 'Comment on the comment He made is explicit at FTN, before he took it to AfD, that he'd nominated it before several times. Dougweller (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Not only is Palmer a descent source, so is (a) Henry H. Bauer (academic, and University press book (b) Michael D. Gordin's (professor of history at Princeton University) The Pseudoscience Wars (U. Chicago Press)[1] (c) Archaeoastronomy (originally University of Maryland, 1982)[2] --Iantresman (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)