Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Nielsen


 * 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. Rlendog (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Richard Nielsen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable amateur researcher and developer of crackpot theories. Does not meet notability guidelines as an academic or otherwise. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Zimmerman (2008) mentions Nielsen as one of three scientists / Kensington Runestone believers whose work rekindled debate during the 1990s. I'm not sure if that makes him notable or just fringe.
 * Cnilep (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Cnilep (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unnotable fringer. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC).
 * Weak keep - niche, maybe, but not really fringe. In fact, he has written some of the available sources debunking some of the more "fringe" stuff (from what I can tell) like this and this. This gives him some coverage but whether it could be considered a "reliable source" is the question. He and his work, though, are covered in each of these books:
 * Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Communities by John Stephen Colwell-Chanthaphonh & Thomas John Ferguson (Rowman Altamira, 2008)
 * Footprints of the Welsh Indians: Settlers in North America Before 1492 by William L. Traxel (Algora Publishing, 2004)
 * Visitors to Ancient America: The Evidence for European and Asian Presence in America Prior to Columbus by William F. McNeil (McFarland, 2005)
 * I think on balance the subject probably does pass WP:GNG. Stalwart 111  (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hundreds of citations are usually required for scholars. There just isn't much here. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC).
 * I'm not really sure about "hundreds", but those aren't really citations anyway - they are analysis of his work. More than just, "so and so said such and such (cite)". But hey, you are free to disagree and mine was only a "weak" keep anyway... Stalwart 111  (talk) 06:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I was wondering who Trexel was. His publishers call him "Mr. Trexel" and say "William L. Traxel has researched the literary, archeological, linguistic and anthropological evidence of pre-Columbian visits and settlements in North America for over 20 years. He graduated from Northwestern University, and Vanderbilt University, and has a doctorate degree from the University of Michigan. Mr. Traxel is a direct descendant of Squire Boone, the grandfather of the legendary frontiersman Daniel Boone." But if you look at the acknowledgment page of his book on Amazon he signs himself as 'Dr' and thanks the library at Poplar Bluff, Mo. He's actually an Ophthalmologist unless there's another person with the same name in Poplar Bluff.. So I think we can safely discard that as meaningful.
 * William F. McNeil is a baseball historian (amateur but apparently respected in this field).
 * The book co-authored with Scott Wolter is self-published. Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete because of the above. I can't see evidence he even meets our GNG criteria. Dougweller (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was working on the basis that the co-authored book was a primary source - it is more regularly cited than him (until his subsequent paper disputing his own conclusions, anyway) but it is certainly not a secondary source, that's for sure. I'm not sure that McNeil is the same McNeil - there are two groups of very different books from different eras. Meh, will have another look but again, it's going to be a line ball call I think. Stalwart 111  (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * His publishers say he is. Dougweller (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * So they do - happy to stand corrected! Strange change of focus... but not the strangest thing I've seen in relation to this subject. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk)


 * Delete for failing WP:BK and WP:AUTHOR. Qworty (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2012 (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.