Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Hearne


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Keith Hearne

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article on a promoter of WP:FRINGE ideas which is drawn entirely form affiliated and/or primary sources. Virtually all content is by WP:SPAs, with a strong hint of autobiography or promotion. Google shows no obvious reliable independent sources on which a more neutral article could be based. Guy (Help!) 13:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 Weak Keep Then maybe some effort should be made to look for sources, now I have no idea if this is RS, but it is third party. We also have this, and this all found by clicking the "news " link in this AFD. It is clear the article needs work, that is not reason to delete. It is a reason to make an effort to improve it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I went through several pages of results, checking for non-trivial RS. There's a lot of churnalism, and some namechecks sufficient to justify a redirect to lucid dreaming, but I did not find a single neutral and independent treatment of Hearne, the subject of the article, outside of blogs. A lot of reality-based blogs rip him a new one for his nonsensical ideas, but those are not RS. Right now we have an unbalanced article because it was written by him or his PR, and the sources are all recycled press releases, and I can't see how that can be fixed. Some good solid sources would be fine, at the moment this is, at best, WP:BLP1E. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As long as you disregard all books on the subject (as being fringe,of course) then yes the coverage is not great.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this RS ?Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:SOAP is the only possibility here. jps (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete references to his own publications are not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:GNG not met outside of in-universe sources. -Roxy the dog. bark 10:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Surely "in universe" refers to fiction.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I have also found this but am having trouble fnding the actual article, so can those who value policy have a go at finding it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC) It's the one above.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This is in dutch, is it any good Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's the news section of the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. It mentions Hearne and describes his dream machine. Doug Weller  talk 17:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So pretty RS then and establishing notability?Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure if the news section is an RS, but it isn't discussion, at least the bit I could see isn't, it's just description of his machine. Doug Weller  talk 19:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, his articles have been published by reputable sources, he seems to be a key researcher in his field of lucid dreaming (a legitimate field of study), and has been covered in sources which report on his chosen field. Randy Kryn 13:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Being published by reputable sources doesn't establish notability. Doug Weller  talk 19:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll ask again Does this?Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2017 (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.