Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Schwabe

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 speedy delete by Ironholds (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G5, article created by a banned user. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Schwabe

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination: Article created by User:Chemistryfan, a confirmed sockpuppet, someone who was overly friendly to Big Bang denialists and Darwin deniers. Article could be fine, article could be a PR-piece, and this guy could be notable or or he could be not notable. I'm nominating so we can have the debate and properly vet, cleanup, or delete these articles as appropriate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Fringe#Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories. Probably a POV piece, used to impart more credibility to the dozens of non-RS creationist websites hailing his work as that of a scientist disproving evolution. Only one source in the article is RS and independent (and it pretty much labels his views as very extreme). The rest are primary sources.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A GS h-index of 26 in the bio-med field is enough for a keep whatever his views on evolution. Nominator is urged to carry out WP:Before before making further AfD nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination is incoherent as there is no such thing as a procedural AFD of this sort - AFD is not cleanup and articles should not be nominated because you don't like the author. Please see our editing policy which tells us that improvement of new articles is ordinary and routine editing. Warden (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This cannot be a speedy keep regardless of any problems in the original nom, because someone independent has advanced a delete vote. Kevin (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural closure Wikipedia:Deletion process states, "In certain situations, a deletion discussion may require a "procedural closure"—a null outcome based on the circumstances of the deletion nomination rather than the merits of the page being discussed." There is no recognized deletion nomination here, so this is such a case. If this article can be G5'ed, there is no need for AfD, and the article should be deleted even if it is notable and sourced. Unscintillating (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at WP:SK which outlines the application of that idea to speedy keep closures. Someone other than the nominator has advanced a rationale for deletion, so it doesn't matter if you think the nomination was flawed. Procedural closures (aka speedy keeps) are only appropriate when no one else has said delete. Kevin (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Procedural closure is part of WP:Deletion process which is a deletion guideline, and WP:Deletion process is not the same as WP:Speedy keep. Unscintillating (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the section on procedural closures suggesting that a procedural closure applies in this case. If you missed it, speedy keeps are talked about on the same page, like three paragraphs down, under early closures. The section of WP:Deletion process dealing with speedy keeps explicitly specifies that they are inappropriate when further good faith contributors have said delete. Kevin (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've already quoted applicable text from WP:Deletion process. Here it is again: Wikipedia:Deletion process states, "In certain situations, a deletion discussion may require a "procedural closure"—a null outcome based on the circumstances of the deletion nomination rather than the merits of the page being discussed." The presence of a delete vote is inconsequential to a procedural closure. My !vote here did not say "speedy keep", so it is not helpful that you keep talking about "speedy keep". Unscintillating (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The creator was not blocked at the time he created the BLP and other editors have contributed to it. There is no case for a G5. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

BLP might be a reason to allow a bad nomination to go forward. See Ron Ritzman's definition of a "high-risk" article here. Unscintillating (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.