Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Talbott (4th 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 delete. j⚛e deckertalk 04:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

David Talbott
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)
 * You are apparently describing those editors who have opted for "keep" in any of these four AfD discussions as "a handful of cranks". You'd do well to study WP:AGF. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are misreading E.M.Gregory's comment. He was clearly referring to the creators of the article and more broadly, to those who use and abuse the project to promote fringe theories, which I am sorry to say is fairly common. That said, I read the three previous AfDs carefully as I share your concern about vexatious nominations. Conceding that I am not sure of what the article looked like at the time of the previous discussions, I will say that I was not impressed by the analysis or the arguments from the keep !votes. They largely ignored the issues involving DUE, and PROFRINGE while their interpretation of GNG seemed shockingly liberal to me. If the article was dramatically different back then, in ways that would have negated my concerns, I would be willing to reconsider my position. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:23, 22 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)
 * (Removed per WP:AE)
 * As far as I can tell the Palmer reference is trivial. I can't comment on Bauer because the link is dead. But GNG clearly requires in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. Beyond which we still have the problem with WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE which make it clear you cannot mention fringe theories without presenting the orthodox explanation, and fringe theories cannot be given equal or greater weight that the correct version. Even if the subject is notable, which has not been established, DUE is policy which trumps WP:N. This article requires MUCH better sourcing and a complete rewrite in order to meet our standards. It is not acceptable in its current form and barring major improvements should be deleted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (Removed per WP:AE)
 * This is not a minority view. It is patently FRINGE. From WP:PROFRINGE "The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight. A conjecture that has not received critical review from the scientific community or that has been rejected may be included in an article about a scientific subject only if other high-quality reliable sources discuss it as an alternative position. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable." From WP:UNDUE "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." This article is a COATRACK for pseudo-scientific fringe theories. It massively fails both FRINGE and DUE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. So much referenciness, and yet so little of substance. A namecheck in Palmer (presumably RS but trivial mention), Atlantis Rising Magazine, very very unreliable, a book by the subject (can't establish notability and advances the ridiculous Electric Universe theory to establish unreliability), a book about Velikiovsky, not Talbott, another book by the subject, an interview with the subject in an unreliable source, a staff listing (WP:OR), an unreliable source or four, another book by the subject, another book about Velikovsky... well, you get the picture. This article is a walled garden: a collection of circular references, an account of the beliefs of a crank drawn largely from his own words and without ever establishing notability independent of the great granddaddy of all cranks, Velikovsky. I have recently read a book on the history of Valikovsky and also Idiot America, I can find no mention in either, so this is clearly a crank mentioned only in some descriptions of works about another, much more important crank. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. If a low-notability WP:FRINGE topic has little coverage by independent sources, then it's impossible for us to maintain a neutral article. bobrayner (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2015 (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.