Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward F. Malkowski


 * 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. The references added to the article don't seem to be convincing anyone that there is sufficient notability. -Scottywong | express _ 18:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Edward F. Malkowski

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable author. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR.

The only existing references in the article are to his own work, which is not evidence of notability.

I searched for "Edward F. Malkowski":
 * JSTOR: no hits
 * Google News: the only hits are death notices
 * Google Books: lots of hits, but mostly seem to be his own publications
 * Google Scholar: 9 hits, 3 of which are to his own books. None of the other 6 appear to be scholarly.

I searched again, omitting the middle initial:
 * JSTOR: no hits
 * Google News: 159 hits, nearly all from the Ludington Daily News, which is the local newspaper of Ludington, Michigan (pop 8,500). I don't know if this is the same person
 * Google Scholar: 9 hits, 35 hits, but I didn't see anything which looks like a scholarly citation of his work

Disclosure: I examined this article while scrutinising the contribs of, having reviewed this DYK submission and taken it to AFD here Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I found a negative review of one of his books ("though this book may be read for amusement, I would not recommend spending any money to purchase it"; Edwin Yamauchi in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (via Highbeam )) and he is cited in a recent Cape Times article ("Evidence leaves no doubt ancient Egypt was black African." (also via Highbeam )). AllyD (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Thanks for those sources Ally. I've added them and also found him referenced in a couple of scholarly articles (Jones and Jaroslav sources), along with a load of external links, youtube video and (externally linked) bloggy book reviews. There's also a lot of discussion about him by "notable fringe" authors, but I am backing off mentioning that sort of thing as per Brownhairedgirl's advice. It's not a strong keep, but I've shown some evidence that elements of his work is getting picked up in academia, and will probably continue to do so. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 17:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding those refs. At least there is now something other than his own work, but I'm still not so persuaded that this adds up to notability:
 * Jones appears to be a self-publsihed dissertation, and it contains only 2 brief mentions of Malkowski
 * The book review in "Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith" is behind a paywall, so I can only see the 1st para. Is it substantial? How does it rate the scholarship?
 * The Cape Times ref appears to be a letter to the editor, but again it's behind a paywall, so I can't evaluate it
 * The Jaroslav ref mentions his work only in part of one sentence: "Some authors concluded that between 6 500–6 000 BCE the flood maximum level was 3 meters higher (Malkowski, 2005)"
 * Four refs appears good, but it looks less impressive when scutinised. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the two paywalled pieces: On 3, you're totally right: looking again it is indeed a letter to the Cape Times, quoting Malkowski along with Martin Bernal etc. On 2. the 7 paragraph review certainly is not positive, categorising the book as being among the "rather bizarre unorthodox interpretations" of Ancient Egyptian monuments and saying that "To support his wide-ranging interpretations, Malkowski cites an array of dubious authorities". AllyD (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment FYI, the hits from the Luddington Daily News are not the same person. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 17:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I can't see how he meets WP:AUTHOR. We've got one book review, but that's not enough, see "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." He doesn't seem to meet any of the other criteria. I've removed the letter to the editor and Jones. That's Jones's PhD, which he also published through AuthorHouse. It's not surprising that he couldn't get it published properly as his PhD leaves something to be desired. If you look at this bio here he says his "dissertation validated that the Nile Valley civilizations predated those of Mesopotamia by tens of thousands of years." You might wonder how that managed to get him a PhD if it's as crackpot as it looks, but the answer to that is that he holds a "Doctor of Philosophy in Arts and Sciences" from Union Institute & University and for that specific PhD a report said " " ... expectations for student scholarship at the doctoral level were not as rigorous as is common for doctoral work ... " which is pretty obvious looking at what he wrote. Here's his website. So, clearly not a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh, how I missed our debates! I totally agree Jones is a crackpot if he thinks culture came up the Nile instead of down the Jordan. I think the only thing that makes me really want to keep this article may be the enjoyment that I get from our discussions and your insight into sources. I don't really like many of Malkowski's fringey ideas at all and would be perfectly happy if the page did go. Nevertheless, the weak keep remains based on the "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", which only takes two to tango and Jaroslav is 2, albeit a very short mention. The other potential seconds I have left in external links, but I would be interested in your opinion of Alan Glassman's review in the New Dawn Magazine (from ) “As our own civilization continues to make the kinds of fascinating discoveries Malkowski describes, I believe we may sooner than later find history to be quite different from what we thought it was.” (Alan Glassman, New Dawn Magazine, November 2010 ). There was also a mention in a German magazine that I thought might qualify . There also appears to be a mention in a paid article that I cannot access, from another secondary source you might consider more reliable - “Subtitled 'The History, Technology and Philosophy of Cvilization X', this is a groundbreaking study making a strong case for the existence of much more sophisticated technology than is currently acknowledged to have been involved in building the pyramids. . . This is a serious piece of work which deserves careful consideration.” (The Scientific & Medical Network, UK, December 2010 ). Now if that text really is in their "Network Review" magazine or other publication of December 2010, then I think we might have a contender. If not, I am not too bothered if this flyweight takes a knockout. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 19:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 10:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The above cited references don't add up to enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the Edward F. Malkowski subject to justify a stand-alone article under WP:GNG. I found a Chicago Tribune article on Edward Malkowski, who does magic performed with playing cards, but that is not the above Edward F. Malkowski. I looked for information that intersected Malkowski and egypt and also looked for information that intersected Malkowski and nile, however I didn't find anything. Reviews of Malkowski's books might justify a Publications of Edward F. Malkowski article, I didn't see enought biographical content in any of the book reviews to support a Wikipedia biography article on Edward F. Malkowski. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK.  The article barely asserts any notability at all.  He's "known" for disputing the precise depth of the Nile in the year 6500 BC?  Come on. Qworty (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2012 (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.