Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean Radin (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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Dean Radin
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm completing this nomination on behalf of, who informs us, presumably reliably, that the subject of this article requests its deletion. It seems that this is because the gentleman concerned is a "fringe theorist" who is not very happy with Wikipedia's treatment of his WP:BLP. There as a previous discussion at Articles for deletion/Dean Radin. For the sake of this debate please consider me clerk - I do not vote either way. I also ask for procedural reasons that it isn't closed early even if it starts WP:SNOWing. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why the injuction against SNOW? Just curious. --Randykitty (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Because my feelings are that this should be dealt with very respectfully, as it seems to be a personal request from a living person. There are also legal threats [suggestions] being made, in which case I think it is appropriate that our policies are followed through to the letter. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Please remember that WP:BLP applies also in this debate. OTRS volunteers may wish to check 2014032710008133. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, appears to meet notability standards, well-sourced. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, I am not sure if I understand this afd. The user Strikertype claims Radin wants the article deleted, but Radin has not published this anywhere official i.e. it's not on his blog. There's many reliable sources and notable scientists on the article that discuss Radin such as Victor Stenger, Robert L. Park, Chris French, Ray Hyman, Massimo Pigliucci, I. J. Good and Brian Josephson etc. There's absolutely no reason why this should be deleted. Goblin Face (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I vote to delete biographies when non-notable and semi-notable people request deletion, but this person is clearly notable.  It's not a particularly flattering biography, but it's within policy.  It could probably use a bit of work to improve the neutrality, but I can't really say that I would expect a parapsychologist to get a warm reception anywhere but in fringe quarters – and WP:FRINGE limits that kind of coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment, we should inform that if Radin really does want the article deleted, he needs to follow the proper protocols (an email to OTRS from his personal email account to verify his identity is one way) to make the request. If we get verification delete as marginally notable. Otherwise, keep. Jeremy112233 (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This is silly. He knows he's notable and passes GNG. He knows we're not going to delete his article. This "request" is some kind of misguided protest against Wikipedia because of Jimbo's recent statement. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Which statement, can you give a link? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hurray for Jimbo! --Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * speedy keep we dont delete because the subject doesnt like how they are portrayed vis a vis the mainstream academic view. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of reviews of his books, enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. --Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think we delete stuff on the basis that the subject wants it deleted. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. What cares what Radin wants? He is a well-known researcher/theorist of "paranormal" phenomena. If he thinks the article is derogatory or violates NPOV policies he or his admirers should pursue those issues. Paul B (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Reluctant Keep, because I prefer not to have an article if the subject does not want one, but this article is well sourced and the subject is very prominent in a rather small field. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG and possibly even WP:ACADEMIC.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2014 (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.