Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Talbott (2nd nomination)


 * 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 was   keep.  MBisanz  talk 17:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

David Talbott
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This particular person has not received much in the way of third-party independent recognition of his ideas. There is a bit of discussion between other Immanuel Velikovsky fans in talking amongst themselves about their various catastrophist ideas, but the single third party source referenced in the article only mentions Talbott off-handedly in reference to his one-event status associated with the founding of Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered). His Saturnian ideas have NOT received notice by third party sources needed per WP:FRINGE and WP:V. There is essentially no way that this article can be sourced appropriately. Essentially, David Talbott fails our WP:BIO guidelines. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, Fails BIO; crufty. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * keep - the article sucks, but he seems notable enough, when all his various activities are taken together. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have wrestled with such arguments for a while. "All his various activities" that are of any note seem to be publishing a moderately successful ten-issue magazine devoted to Velikovsky. His Saturnian stuff isn't notable, his Thunderbolts stuff isn't notable, and his advocacy on messageboards and listservs can be read in internet archives, but has not received the notice of third-parties. Essentially, the issue is one of sourcing. If you could point us to the third-party reliable sources which indicate to you that his various activities taken together have been noticed by enough of th outside world for us to write an article in a mainstream encyclopedia, I'd love to see them. As it is, I think it is nearly impossible to write an article about this guy. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability applies to the subject, not the content. It is not "nearly impossible to write an article about this guy", it's already been done.  Should ScienceApologist have any valid concerns about sourcing, he could (and should) discuss this rationally on the article talk page. Also as per my "Keep" argument below, he contradicts himself on this matter.  As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not (yet) a mainstream encyclopedia we currently should adhere to five pillars and what Wikipwdia is/is not which the WP:MAINSTREAM page (a proposal authored by ScienceApologist) appears to be in direct conflict with. Davesmith au (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I found a few additional sources, that help with personal notability of mr Talbot (they are not great, but there you are). such as: -www.coasttocoastam.com/ guest on the broadly syndicated nutjob radio show.  -The Saturn Myth review of book and idea by a sympathetic person (who also works for Aeon, one of Mr. Talbott's journals).  -review of Thunderbolts materials
 * In addition, the whole field of Catastrophism seems to be getting a lot of attention these days from folks who like fringe historical revisionism. Mr. Talbott seems a moderately important figure in that realm, so better to keep the article and make it readable, rather than deal with the nutters recreating stuff to be speedily deleted next month.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * keep - WP:IDONTLIKEIT and an edit war not going your way are not a good basis for an AFD. Artw (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an uncivil and rude comment that does not assume good faith about the nomination. You obviously didn't consider it carefully. Please indicate what third-party independent sources you would use to write this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You pretty much admit to AFDing this as a result of edit conflicts with other users here. (talk)
 * That is a GROSS misinterpretation of the post to WP:FTN. My AfD nomination has nothing to do with conflicts associated with other users. I am reporting this. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * After careful consideration of the recent activity on the talk page and the article's recent edit history, and having offered a correction of ScienceApologist's misrepresentation of the facts at WP:FTN, and with reference to my own "Keep" arguments below, I have to agree with Artw on this matter. Davesmith au (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Disclosure:  I am involved with the work of David Talbott as already disclosed in good faith here prior to my direct involvement with this article, see also here.  Should anyone show where any bias I may have is influencing the article I am only too happy to discuss it. Having said that, I expect the article to reflect a NPOV encyclopedic biography, rather than either a glowing endorsement or an attempted discreditation of his work.  Third party sources should be (and have been) discussed on the article's talk page.  There are at least four in the current rendering of the bio.  ScienceApologist's characterizing of people as Velikovsky "fans" does not make it so, and is only his POV.  WP:FRINGE has nothing to say about article deletion, but rather, content.  WP:V has also been discussed on the talk page, general consensus over a number of sources also having been reached before ScienceApologist joined the discussion.  To assert that there is "essentially no way that this article can be sourced appropriately" (especially as some of his own edits - see further on - list sources) is to discount the input of many other contributors on the talk page and to the article, including himself. As David Talbott has already been considered in a previous AfD the result of which was "keep", and as there's been ongoing discussion since then about his bio, ScienceApologist should be a bit more specific than "fails our WP:BIO guidelines".  Under the circumstances, one must ask why has ScienceApologist been editing the article (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here), if he thinks it not notable?  Surely this is some indication that he thought it had some value.  I submit that whilst he thought he could get away with applying his own negative POV to the article in an attempt to discredit Talbott, someone with whom he has an undeclared COI, that's what he tried to do.  He even instigated a WP:BRD action which he failed to follow through or discuss, and then after I questioned his good faith by asserting a COI from my own firsthand experience with him in other fora, he listed the article for deletion, without acknowledging or refuting the alleged COI or attempting ANY dispute resolution proceedings.  On those grounds alone admins should de-list this AfD post haste, before discussion degenerates into a slanging match.  See also Deletion_policy "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." and  Deletion_policy "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page." and also Deletion_policy "It is also inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution." Davesmith au (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I should also note a complete revision of the talk page is recommended to anyone attempting to assess this issue. Davesmith au (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. ScienceApologist, in the WP:FTN post you say someone you believe to be the subject or someone related to them is trying to rid the article of criticism. You never even mentioned the thought they could be non-notable after several edits and reverts. Those edits and reverts are a dispute, perhaps even an edit war and you are personally involved in it. Nominating an article for deletion during a dispute is a bad idea. - Mgm|(talk) 23:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep He doesn't have to have received "much" 3rd party recognition, just enough to satisfy the guidelines, which he has done. Personally, I think we do well to provide objective information about people like this, and the present article does so very nicely. It is not necessary to have a long astronomical explanation of why he is hopelessly wrong, as simply stating his theories seems to do the job nicely.DGG (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep He's published by a non-vanity publisher and he's discussed in a couple of sources that are credible cataloguers of such people. Crazy as a box of frogs, but notable nonetheless. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Very unhappy Keep, because "AfD is not cleanup". The article sucks. It's terrible. For examples of a good treatment of these nutball (even if notable) "theories" on Wikipedia, see 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance and 1421: The Year China Discovered the World. We really need a new Z-class quality rating for articles that so utterly fail to provide critical context: "critical" as in both crucial and skeptical, and by "context" I mean such optional niceties as elementary logic, laws of nature, causality, and the historical record.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've ordered a copy of the book "1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance" as it looks hilarious and the title is so wonderfully over the top. If it's any good I'll have two more, as birthday presents to serious medievalist re-enactors who will be equally outraged and amused by it. The Wikipedia article is also a fine read and manages to debunk without cruelty, even allowing itself a poke at Wikipedia. Isn't this sort of thing just what we're here for? The kooks aren't going away, so at least someone with a little knowledge should still make the effort to challenge their claims. Contrast this to Cold Fusion where we can no longer defend against the pseudoscience because credible science has stopped talking about it and we're running low on sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep with the understanding that the subject is every bit as deserving of a Wikipedia entry as Immanuel Velikovsky, Zecharia Sitchin, Erich von Däniken, and other similarly notable inhabitants of the fringe and with the hope that the entry can be reframed in such a manner that the reader does not confuse the subject as a potential candidate for Canonization or recipient of a Nobel Prize. While it is true that Talbott's work has not been subject to extensive critical examination by third parties in the mainstream, such as David Morrison, James Oberg, Henry Bauer, Robert Jastrow, James Trefil, and Jay Pasachoff (all of whom published criticisms of Velikovsky), it has been criticized in Skeptic by L. Ellenberger (1995) and in the subscriber-only fringe publications Aeon by R. Ashton (1988) and C&C Review by L. Rose (2000) and P. James (2000), all of whom were cited in the version drastically edited recently by Dicklyon. Phaedrus7 (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.