Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas W. Campbell


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thomas W. Campbell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Self-published author with no third-party sources available to refer to him. Crank with a Youtube channel. cagliost (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable self-published writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable exponent of the simulation hypothesis.  His paper "On Testing the Simulation Theory" was published in the International Journal of Quantum Foundations, a peer-reviewed journal whose Editorial Board includes Roger Penrose.  His YouTube channel has over 7.5 million views, and he raised over $230,000 in a Kickstarter to fund experimental tests of his theory.  The experiments are now being carried out by a team at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. Tim Smith (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * On it's own, having some scientific papers published does not make someone notable. Neither does having a fairly popular YouTube channel. Neither does running a moderately successful Kickstarter. Are these together enough to establish notability? I don't think so. There appears to be a total or near-total lack of third party sources about him. cagliost (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I also take issue with the claim he is a notable proponent of the simulation hypothesis. Lots of people are proponents of the simulation hypothesis, but to make him a notable proponent of the simulation hypothesis, there would have to be third party sources saying so. cagliost (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete. Seems plenty notable to me, given authored books and a deep reach to viewers on YouTube. We shouldn't delete notable articles just because we think they are a "crank" (explicit hoaxes aside, of course!) -- &#x03C6; OnePt618Talk &#x03C6;  05:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: After reading the other arguments, I'm persuaded that this should be a delete.-- &#x03C6; OnePt618Talk &#x03C6;  02:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Self authoring books and YouTube views don't make one notable. It's unfortunate the original nominator used the term "crank" to describe the person though. As it kind of taints this. As can be seen by the keep vote above. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment (from nominator): article currently has no third-party sources (except socialblade.com youtube statistics). Please can those advocating Keep add some third-party sources? cagliost (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)