Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott F. Wolter


 * 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. I closed this early under WP:SNOW and to respect the wishes of the subject, no need to prolong this. J04n(talk page) 17:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Scott F. Wolter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable fringe scientist (doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC), notable for a single argument (WP:ONEEVENT). Subject has requested deletion and he does not seem to be so clearly notable that this is an unreasonable request. Sources seem at best to be trivial coverage, based on the outlandishness of his claim. The sourced information could be incorporated into the article on the Kensington Runestone. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom. It appears likely that the subject's books are self-published, and in any case have had no significant academic recognition - and neither is there obvious evidence that the books have had that much recognition elsewhere. A single untested and implausible claim with only minor comment in secondary sources seems a poor justification for a Wikipedia biography - though it may perhaps merit a passing mention in out article on the Kensington Runestone, if only as an illustration of how easy it is to get things wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

*Keep I am not sure he's notable, but he has explicitly asked for removal of the article because he doesn't like what is being said--he doesn't want his theories criticized; naturally, a NPOV article might inevitable give the impression that his theories are not mainstream, but that's irrelevant. That's not a reason for deletion--if the only articles on fringe scientists are the ones that have a POV in their favor, we will be in a very sorry state indeed. His book is in 74libraries, and tho its not a lot for conention history, its substantial for this sort of work.  DGG ( talk ) 08:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * STRONG Delete - Possibly consider adding a few sentences under Kensington Runestone, but I suspect this should be WP:FRINGE and should just disappear in the dust bin of history. PeterWesco (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any notability criteria regarding number of selfpublished books in libraries, and if there were I really don't think 74 would be enough. I also don't believe that keeping just to spite the subject is a valid rationale.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 09:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Like DGG I don't like deleting an article because the subject wants to suppress all criticism of himself, but the fact is that his only notability is with regard to the Runestone, and the only sourced criticism is about that. There's no discussion of his book at all, only his technical report. All that can be merged into the Runestone article. If there are reviews of the books and sourced discussion of its claims about the Knights Templar and Columbus's secret map, then it might be worth keeping, but I doubt it even then, because this is all generic fringe history stuff. Paul B (talk) 10:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - tend to agree. The clincher for me is that the other guy, Dr Nielsen, doesn't have a wikipedia article. Deb (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * that particular consideration is irrelevant, btw; the customary response is, perhaps he should.  DGG ( talk ) 15:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, what I mean is, Nielsen clearly has some qualifications and some kind of academic history, whereas I haven't been able to track down any reference to Walter having any - but Nielsen also seems to rely for his notability on this Kensington Runestone business. Deb (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I have to agree with Paul--despite the normal inclination we should have not to grant such requests in any borderline situation unless there is a compelling reason (and a compelling reason can occur--I have closed one or two such as Delete when the article is manifestly unfair and no fair article could be written), there's no point keeping this just for an example. If he were borderline, yes, but it's below borderline.  DGG ( talk ) 15:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete DGG's argument above is compelling. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject also asked via OTRS, but this page was already created. The criticism comes from a self published site, and we would have to question should it be included. If that's removed then there is not a great deal left. For those with OTRS, you can read more at OTRS ticket 2012122310004952.  Ron h jones (Talk) 01:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Based on what I've read here, getting fair treatment is impossible. You can't even spell my name right (Walter?); just delete the damn listing and be done with it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hookedx (talk • contribs) 00:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you should read WP:ABIO. Mkdw talk 06:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Wolter aka User:Hookedx does not seem notable per WP:BLP. Furthermore, a lot of the emphasis is on Wolter's book and not Wolter. As such I think Wolter's work would be an independent source for information on Kensington Runestone and not Scott F. Wolter. Mkdw talk 06:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment His book is however self-published, so I'm not sure about that. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I excluded reliable in my wording for that possible reason. Any source would need to meet WP:Reliable. Mkdw talk 06:27, 28 December 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.