Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Kayatta


 * 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. This is pretty borderline, as there are a few references. However, through the opinions stated here, I am determining a consensus that favors on deletion of this article. ( X! ·  talk )  · @117  · 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

George Kayatta

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable subject; apparent WP:COI. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This person is clearly an eccentric, to say the least.  But he is a notable eccentric.  Underwood Dudley writes about him as a notable eccentric, Jonathan Partington discussed him in a lecture on eccentrics.  His literary efforts are mentioned in two cited news publications and Dudley's book gives references to other newpapers.  Another reliable source describes his music.  This surely adds up to notability?  By the way, what are these COI problems of which you speak?  Rhomb (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article's history one might suspect Kayatta created the article himself.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This person is enough notable (see refrences 3 and 4).Rirunmot 11:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * weak delete. In it's current form the article might be acceptable as far as the content goes. But the notability is imho borderline at best (only being mentioned in a few newspapers is not enough). If he had an increased media coverage (much more than those 3 newspapers/journals) or published a number of books his notability might be ok, but the article doesn't quite make that case. Another problem (looking at the article's history) is, that if it is kept, it probably needs to be watched constantly otherwise it might revert easily to its unacceptable earlier state.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - though there is some coverage, I wouldn't call it significant. Also WP:PROMOTION.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Having read some brief passages of his alleged mathematics, I've changed the assertion that he "has contributed to" mathematics to one that he "claims to have contributed to" mathematics. I'm surprised someone said the article is acceptable in its present form while that claim was there. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - the coverage of him appears to be fairly trivial. Significant coverage in reliable sources is required for WP:BIO, and I don't think he has it. Robofish (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. It seems that, in order to describe him accurately, we need an article that reads much like an attack page. For some people (notorious criminals, say) it is justified to have a wholly negative article on them, despite WP:BLP, because that is what they are famous for. But in this case I don't think such an article is justified by the only minor level of notoriety that he has achieved. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But maybe his translation of the Bible into rhyming verses is a legitimate achievement? ............ But then I suspect he might object to limiting the article to his legitimate achievements. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we have a policy that distinguishes "legitimate" from "illegitimate" achievements somehow? His Planetarium Papers may not be legitimate mathematics, but Dudley wrote a chapter of a book about them, which IMHO makes them notable.   Rhomb (talk) 07:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely we wouldn't have a page on every chapter of each of Dudley's books, would we? And he's not even the most prominent crank from his chapter; just the only named one. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as not notable. For such large claims and such a large ego, a similarly large body of references would be fitting. Yet the first source in the article dismisses him in 1 (one, as in single) sentence as a crank who mingles with other cranks. The other newspaper article (which is not linked in full) pays attention only to his Bible translation and mentions everything else only in passing; it even says at the bottom "See BIBLE, 7-E" for those who want to continue reading. It seems that his only notable achievement is the versified Bible; but the newspaper article said that he was having trouble getting it published, and the only reference I can find to it anywhere is, which seems to be a copyright registration. I suspect his translation is unpublished. Dudley's paragraph on him, , simply calls him a "tireless self-promoter" and says nothing more. I think that's the right spirit: Wikipedia should say nothing more about him, and in fact should say even less. Ozob (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not correct. Kayatta is the "K." of an entire chapter "Megalomania", of Dudley's book.  The paragraph just quotes references, of which there are ten, including the Wall Street Journal.  Rhomb (talk) 07:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. One must search in Dudley's book for "Megalomania", not for "Kayatta" in order to find that chapter. Alright, I withdraw that claim. But I think my point is still valid: A "renaissance man" with big achievements needs big coverage; else maybe his notoriety is all in his head. Ozob (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - enough sources, including Dudley, to establish notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Enough sources?? The article says:
 * He holds three Leonardo Da Vinci Awards (as artist, author, and playwright) from the Beaux Arts Society
 * The article on Leonardo Da Vinci Awards says it is presented by Rotary Clubs in Europe, and we have no article titled Beaux Arts Society nor any red links to that name from articles. So maybe "enough sources", but how many of them check out? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Is that a rhetorical question ? I see several press and magazine articles plus the Dudley reference. If you don't think these are reliable sources then by all means remove them from the article. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Google has enough results on "Leonardo Da Vinci Award" "Beaux Arts Society" that I believe that it exists, but that doesn't convince me of its notability. It might be a vanity award like those from the ABI for all I know. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Philanthropic League?
 * and a Humanitarian Award from NYC Philanthropic League.
 * Google does not quickly confirm that that organization exists. Can anyone help here? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Leaning keep. The fact that his documented notability does not appear to reach the level of his claims is not really relevant; he only needs to be notable enough.  My principal reservation is that it might be difficult to keep libel from creeping in. --Trovatore (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Revising; see below. --Trovatore (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see only one paragraph on him in Dudley's book . The other mainstream references are even shorter mentions. This article is going to be a never-ending BLP struggle between his self-promotion and reliable sources that present him in a negative light for good reason. He has already spammed three other articles with unwarranted links to this bio, but I see no article on Wikipedia that will genuinely suffer by the deletion of this. Pcap ping  19:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There's an entire chapter, see comments by myself and Ozob above. Rhomb (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I commented on the Math WikiProject, Kayatta is not the subject of the chapter, just one of the examples. He is the only named example, though. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  19:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  19:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Insufficient coverage by independent sources, plus perennial BLP problems. Nsk92 (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Quirky figure, maybe crackpot, but one who is discussed in multiple independent and prominent sources. LotLE × talk  19:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep crackpots can be just as notable as rocket scientists, and this one has been called "the doyen of modern paradoxers" by a prominent Math professor. This guy is clearly notable via reliable sources. Crum375 (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Certainly does not pass WP:Prof. Eccentrics can be notable but I don't think this one makes it. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Leaning delete. After thinking about it and considering David Eppstein's argument, I'm not so happy about an article that is going to be mainly criticism of a person that we could with little loss omit.  I think he's probably notable enough for an article, but not so notable that we really need one, and my mother always taught me that if you can't say anything nice.... --Trovatore (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2010 (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.