Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert V. Gentry (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. Nomination withdrawn.  Sandstein  16:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert V. Gentry
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:Notability The article tells us three things about Mr. Gentry: He wrote a self-published book, he filed a lawsuit which was dismissed, and he testified in another lawsuit in which his side lost. These things did get some press notice but it does not seem like enough to merit a WP bio. The article was AfDed in 2006 and kept based on the argument that other articles linked to it and if it were deleted red wikilinks would result. I don't think this is enough of a reason to have an article on a not so notable person. Borock (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've withdrawn my nomination due to more info added to article. See note at bottom of page.Borock (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge: to Creation geophysics where appropriate, with remainder going into List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: mention in The Creationists turns out to be far more extensive than coverage in article would suggest -- easily enough to establish notability on its own. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It may be of marginal notability but it is well sourced and it is a unique perspective that is of interest to the creation-evolution controversy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Although he's not in the same league as (say) Duane Gish, Gentry's contributions to the creationist argument are well-known in the field, and the article contains adequate sourcing to demonstrate this (IMO). Tevildo (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems notable in my opinion. He seems to be selling alot of books and alot of people follow the author. He even has Scientists coming out to condemn his views. The article should not be deleted. NorwalkJames (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. To revise the case for deletion: "He wrote a self-published book which a lot of people have read, he filed a lawsuit which was dismissed on a technicality, ... The article was AfDed in 2006 and the arguments for keeping made then still apply." The fact that I don't agree with him is irrelevant. I want to be able to use wikipedia to check on who he is and what he says. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to check on drug dealers and gang leaders in my neighborhood, but I don't think it's WP's job to help me check on people.Borock (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If they'e notable, yes it is. And if they're well known, or having a significant effect on your neighbourhood, they may well be notable. I think that your making this comparison betrays your motives. You want him out because he's wrong, whereas the suppositiion that he's wrong (which most of us agree with) is irrelevant. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that he's wrong about the age of the earth, but that's not why I nominated the article. Hrafn has added some more material to the article which makes him more interesting. However I still don't think notability is established if his book is only self-published. A self-published book would generally not be accepted as a source on WP.  How can a review of a self-published book be?  And how can the author of a self-published book (if that is his greatest claim to fame) be the subject of an article? Borock (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "How can a review of a self-published book be?" When the reviews are made in, or cited by, a WP:RS. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, Gentry's notability extends far beyond his "self-published book". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Have just added 4 articles, in high-impact scientific journals, to the bibliography, supporting this point. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep If Science and PRL published multiple papers of his, and multiple scientists have reviewed the book, and Nature has actually published an article about him discussing his work, no matter how dismissively,   he's worthy of being taken seriously, no matter how far fringe. It makes him notable fringe.  DGG (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn Due to added material and sources, thanks guys. The original article did not fully explain his importance, or at least the amount of attention he has been getting. Borock (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2009 (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.