Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gene Matlock


 * 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. Chetblong T C 04:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Gene Matlock

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable academic. Is only known as fringe historian with theories that don't seem to have any references from reliable sources. No significant coverage of the subject or his theories by reliable sources unaffiliated with the subject. Optigan13 (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom. WP:FRINGE writ large. Also, is it just me, or is there a mighty suspicious 1st-person "I" in there? Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 23:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That "I" is actually just odd because it is from a lengthy quote without much to set it off in the paragraph it appears in. I've set if off using a quote template, which still looks odd to me. As for the fringe theory part, I tend to agree, since none of the hits in my searches came back with anything reliable. The only reliable one is from the same Skeptical Enquirer article. Searches for Google-Web, and Google-Scholar -Optigan13 (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Fringe and per extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof. Nothing in notability either.  -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete weird fringe, suspect publishers. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete. Not notable at all in real life, and his flakiness seems to have attracted only a little attention from other flakes. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable retired high-school teacher with some strange ideas about history.  All the books appear to be self-published, the "magazine" article seems to be a blog; the one reliable source that mentions him does so in passing in an article on fringe historians who make outrageous claims without evidence.  I'm not sure a single article qualifies him as a notable fringe historian, and so he remains simply a fringe historian without peer-reviewed publications. RJC Talk Contribs 18:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * delete per RJC and nom. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2008 (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.