Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert V. Gentry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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) 20:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article states the person is a creationist, advocates his ideas and invented his own cosmology. Good enough, but it should be deleted unless it's shown that someone has paid attention to this. (Prod reverted.) Conscious 10:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now [1] [2] He has a book ISBN 0-9616753-2-2 that appears to be self published (at least Earth Science Associates seems to be associated with Orion Foundation. His press release on the lawsuit. He also gets hits from scientific journals. kotepho 11:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seems notable enough, if it needs attention put {{attention}} on it -- Astrokey44|talk 12:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep looks notable enough. --Terence Ong 16:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Cmon, some totally unnotable, shit-disturbing, creationist whacko who hardly deserves encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus 17:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) He may not be notable to you (2) You may feel disturbed by him, but "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia." --Iantresman 13:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While I am strongly in favor of keeping the Gentry article, I think you are minsinerprting the no personal attacks rule, which applies to not making personal attacks about other wikipedians. JoshuaZ 19:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ian has a habit of misapplying this particular rule. --ScienceApologist 06:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While I am strongly in favor of keeping the Gentry article, I think you are minsinerprting the no personal attacks rule, which applies to not making personal attacks about other wikipedians. JoshuaZ 19:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an article about the lawsuit in Nature and decent coverage of it in various places. kotepho 19:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, borderline notable per Kotepho. And I won't hear anything against whackos here, young man! We have highly encyclopaedic articles on notable members of this species! Besides, beati pauperes spiritu and all that. Why, in my time... Sandstein 19:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, one book... self-published, part of a lawsuit, & a few journal articles. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Sandstein has a valid point... ideology isn't grounds for deletion.--Isotope23 19:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per kotepho. Slowmover 23:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I made this stub because we link to him on multiple pages including radiohalo creation-evolution controversy and Creationist cosmologies. Finally got tired of seeing the red link. If he isn't notable, why do we have pages that wikilink to him? --ScienceApologist 03:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per ScienceApologist Homestarmy 13:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per ScienceApologist . Mukadderat 18:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He hasn't created the page himself, he's known in the field, and he's peer reviewed [3] --Iantresman 13:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable creationist. JoshuaZ 19:18, 17 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.