Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael D. Aeschliman


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Michael D. Aeschliman

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is another sockpuppet production from the same drawer that brought us Conrad Hughes. After socks were blocked, I removed all primary sources before nominating. This subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR. There's no sustained reliable coverage significantly about this subject indicating his encyclopedic notability. There was lots of primary stuff, by related parties. Now it's two books. If one is notable, it might need an article instead of a socky BLP. JFHJr (㊟) 03:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Italy, Switzerland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York,  and Virginia.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  06:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, with redirection also being an option if anyone other than a blocked sock is interested in making a stub on the notable book. I see a notable book with reviews (and also respectable citations in a low citation field), but little other evidence of notability.  WP:BLP1E at best. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Despite the problems of puffery and COI authoring etc before the gutting of the entry ... he seems to me to pass WP:Author as his book has been primary subject of multiple independent reviews and an article on him might therefor be useful. An article on the book would seem to me odd, but a brief article on the author mentioning the books would seems OK. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC))
 * Had another look (thanks to User:JoelleJay's ping) and think the book's publishers WE & DI and reviews in some marginal journals raise enough fringish worries to make my keep based on the book not so wise. Perhaps he is more known as a journalist in the National Review but notability is not so clear enough to me to justify. Preface by Malcolm Muggeridge to, and praise from Rowan Williams for, the book were the things that I now think mislead me. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC))
 * Delete. This is about a "survey" (as the book is self-described) published in 2019 by "Discovery Institute," a Seattle-based think tank, which was later translated into French.  At the risk of stating the obvious, if the guide or the author were notable, sockpuppets and primary sources wouldn't have been necessary for the article creation.  The guide reviews aren't found in reliable sources and appear (as is sometimes the case with unknown manuals) to be provided by the author's associates.  There don't appear to be any reliable sources for the author either. In addition to failing WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NAUTHOR, the article reads like a peacock marketing piece that runs into further WP:GNG problems when considering a ten-year or twenty-year test. 174.197.67.208 (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, per FRINGE and our notability guidelines. As noted above, this guy is affiliated with the Discovery Institute, a disinformation-spewing intelligent design think tank. The Restoration edition is not reliably published -- it went through Discovery Institute Press, a fact that is strangely absent from the article. Its reviews include several in unreliable sources like Evolution News (DI magazine) and/or do not satisfy WP:FRIND's criterion (bolded) The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources, outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself. The Le Figaro review might be acceptable, but one review is definitely not sufficient for an unreliably-published fringe book. The earlier Restitution edition went through a non-academic Christian publisher that doesn't seem inherently unreliable, and some of its reviews are in reliable (if biased) journals, so it's possible an article could be written on it and the biography title redirected to it. While it is sometimes preferable to cover multiple marginally-notable books (or one notable book and one or more related marginal ones) by the same author in a biography page rather than in separate weak pages (or not at all), I don't think Restoration is sufficiently distinct from its precursor to use this as justification for a biography. Moreover, I do not think a biography would be appropriate when a) all IRS SIGCOV is of the author's works and b) the non-independent/primary material we would normally use to fill out a biography on an academic will necessarily be sourced to fringe orgs and thus be overtly non-neutral. Ping @Msrasnw. Also ping @David Eppstein as someone more experienced with NAUTHOR/humanities cases, which I normally avoid. JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. For me, one book (even in multiple editions) is never enough for WP:AUTHOR, and there appears to be no evidence of WP:PROF notability. No objection to redirecting to an article on the book, if anyone cares to make an article on the book. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter to me that the book takes a fringe anti-science position, whether it is reliably published, or whether the reviews are positive or negative; all that matters for AUTHOR or for notability of the book is the number and depth of mainstream (per WP:FRINGE) reliably published reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete One book is not enough to support an author biography, in all but the most exceptional cases (say, if that one book had become the standard text for a mainstream university course). An article on the book itself is possible in principle, if multiple reviews exist that can truly be said to come from outside the fringe bubble. That's a separate discussion, however. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2024 (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.