Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Peczkis


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Jan Peczkis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO. External notice is necessary for WP:FRINGE subjects, and while many creationists trumpet this person, we need independent sources to establish notability on the basis of fringey-ness. He is not a notable WP:AUTHOR either. jps (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's nothing wrong with this short article as far as I can see. Refs are fine. WP:FRINGE is about theories, not individuals, possible misreading of actual policies I'm afraid. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 19:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is he notable? jps (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seems he has an MA, taught elementary school for awhile and is a substitute teacher. He is a book reviewer for Amazon ... seems anyone can write reviews for Amazon so how is that remotely notable? Seems he has three books published by the Institute for Creation Research and "several" articles for that institute and Answers in Genesis ... where have those works been reviewed? Tell me again how this good man is notable ... Vsmith (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete; the lack of reliable independent sources in a fringey area makes it very difficult to write neutral content. In this case, we have a choice between a substantial article based on creationist sources, or cut it down to a microstub about an otherwise non-notable individual, or deletion. The latter is the best way to meet wikipedia's standards. Other sites which don't require neutrality or notability may find it easier to sustain an article on this person, but not wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No deep third-party coverage in reliable sources to support notability criteria. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as non notable. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  00:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. He has a few mainstream journal articles under his own name, from his time at Northeastern Illinois University (see Google Scholar), plus the Creationist books under the "John Woodmorappe" pseudonym (these have received multiple reviews, mostly negative). He gets a brief mention in Robert P. Vande Kappelle's Beyond Belief: Faith, Science, and the Value of Unknowing and in the Tom McIver book already cited in the article. There is also some minor media coverage. Altogether, I think that puts him over the notability line. -- 101.117.57.204 (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC) — 101.117.57.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I am not seeing anything that would make him notable. VViking Talk Edits 04:10, 1 May 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.