Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Talbott
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. – Black Falcon (Talk) 18:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David Talbott[edit]
- David Talbott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
The subject of this article is an amateur comparative mythologist who has some quirky theories but hasn't received the recognition required for a notable Wikipedia article. In particular, he, as a subject, does not rise to the level of WP:BIO. Nondistinguished 15:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pensée (Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered) Nondistinguished 16:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric universe (concept). --Dawdler 16:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Text removed that was posted by a banned user
- Comment: This is 76.209.50.134's one and only edit. Additionally, mere mention of something in a book is not enough to establish notability per WP:N nor is it a good justification for an encyclopedia article. Kronos (journal), which is not peer-reviewed in the normal sense, is not generally considered a reliable source, and neither Ev Cochrane nor Alfred de Grazia are not an independent source both being heavily enculturated in catastrophism circles. I wonder whether Alfred de Grazia deserves a Wikipedia article himself as it seems that he doesn't rise to the notability asked for in WP:PROF. Nondistinguished 17:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Trevor Palmer mentions Talbott once on p. 122 in a group of fellow "Saturnists", hardly a "notable" citation. Talbott is arguably the most active player in the post-Velikovsky era of "Velikovskian and neo-Velikovskian" studies, pursuing his monomania of the "Saturn Hypothesis" for 35 years, who has been successful in obtaining financial support from a small number of entrepreneurs with more money than sound scientific understanding for his multi-media activities (video documentaries, conferences, publishing, private moderated list-serve, etc.). In 1998 he attempted an unregistered stock offering to raise a million dollars for his umbrella organization WholeMind Corp. that envisioned a distance-learning component, which evidently was not successful. Agreed, Kronos was not a meaningfully peer-reviewed journal. Although Talbott's book The Saturn Myth from Doubleday never had a second printing, it is held by 193 libraries according to WorldCat database, compared to John White's Pole Shift from same publisher in the same year which is held by 280 libraries. Cochrane's Martian Metamorphoses is held by only two libraries; de Grazia's Chaos and Creation, by 31 libraries. In comparison, Henry Bauer's 1984 Beyond Velikovsky is held by 554 libraries, de Grazia's 1966 The Velikovsky Affair by 520, Scientists Confront Velikovsky by 1340, Velikovsky and Establishment Science by 147, and Carl Sagan and Immmanuel Velikovsky by 58. Cochrane's book and de Grazia's recent "Quantavolution" series books are self-published.--Phaedrus7 16:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you make an excellent case for deletion right there by establishing the fact that this person isn't notable. Nondistinguished 19:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the article seems fairly informative and is well referenced. It could be further improved if needed. Moreover Nondistinguished (= User:ScienceApologist) has a history of conducting witch hunts to eradicate and censor material from wikipedia concerning non-mainstream academia.--feline1 21:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Non-mainstream ideas need to be notable to be included in Wikipedia. In particular, you haven't answered the basic point that the article fails to rise to the level asked for of WP:BIO. If subjects of articles aren't notable the articles should be deleted. Nondistinguished 19:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are clearly User:ScienceApologist, I recognise your prose style a mile off! LOL You make take that as a compliment if you wish; it is however just intended as a neutral statement of fact, not as a personal attack. Your assertion "Non-mainstream ideas need to be notable to be included in Wikipedia" displays the very nub of your agenda, doesn't it? Are you implying that "mainstream" ideas do *not* need to be notable to be included in wikipedia? Basically, you just want to eradicate "non-mainstream" ideas from wikipedia, don't you? Why are you so scared of them? If articles on them are well written, from a neutral point of view, and verifiable, what is the problem?--feline1 20:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Accusing somebody of starting a sockpuppet account for conducting witch hunts is a serious offense. You should not be making it here. Nondistinguished 20:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But you already told me (months ago) that your User:ScienceApologist account was technically a "sock puppet" by rules of the policy anyways... I don't really see what difference it makes what login name you use anyways, it's only a handle! It's your actual editing style that's the important thing.--feline1 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the first time that I ever had contact with you since I started my account. Nondistinguished 20:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it doesn't really matter, does it? Let's just say once upon a time there was another editor called User:ScienceApologist. He seems to have since departed the community. It's a shame he's not still around, cos I think you would've gotten on with him so well. Man, seems to me you two guys were like peas in a pod - same views, same interests, even exact same writing style, same excellent knowledge of wikipedia policies and guidelines (gee, you picked them up real quick, I must say! Me, I've been here years, and I'm still learning). He gave me a bit of a hard time on the Immanuel Velikovsky article, but I guess come to think about it, he did spur us to improve the article and make it more verifiable and neutral. Yep, sure miss that ole' ScienceApologist. --feline1 20:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the first time that I ever had contact with you since I started my account. Nondistinguished 20:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But you already told me (months ago) that your User:ScienceApologist account was technically a "sock puppet" by rules of the policy anyways... I don't really see what difference it makes what login name you use anyways, it's only a handle! It's your actual editing style that's the important thing.--feline1 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Accusing somebody of starting a sockpuppet account for conducting witch hunts is a serious offense. You should not be making it here. Nondistinguished 20:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are clearly User:ScienceApologist, I recognise your prose style a mile off! LOL You make take that as a compliment if you wish; it is however just intended as a neutral statement of fact, not as a personal attack. Your assertion "Non-mainstream ideas need to be notable to be included in Wikipedia" displays the very nub of your agenda, doesn't it? Are you implying that "mainstream" ideas do *not* need to be notable to be included in wikipedia? Basically, you just want to eradicate "non-mainstream" ideas from wikipedia, don't you? Why are you so scared of them? If articles on them are well written, from a neutral point of view, and verifiable, what is the problem?--feline1 20:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Non-mainstream ideas need to be notable to be included in Wikipedia. In particular, you haven't answered the basic point that the article fails to rise to the level asked for of WP:BIO. If subjects of articles aren't notable the articles should be deleted. Nondistinguished 19:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not my agenda to exclude or include anything in the encyclopedia except for those articles which do not live up to the guidelines and policies set forth by the Wikipedia community. My agenda is not what makes WP:N a guideline for Wikipedia. Instead community consensus is what determines the applicability of certain inclusion and exclusion guidelines. If you dislike notability as a requirement for inclusion of Wikipedia articles, you can discuss your objections at Wikipedia talk:Notability. Here is not the place to do it. Please respond directly to the objections I outlined in my nomination. Nondistinguished 20:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already given my vote for the article's deletion. There's little point in you trying to harrass me into changing it. And if you continue to delete my comments calling them "personal attacks", there's not much point me bothing to type anything at all!--feline1 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Anyways, if the consensus of the vote turns out to be for "delete", that's fine by me.... --feline1 20:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have pointed out that your opinion is contrary to the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. You have not responded to this. Also, WP:AfD is not about "voting". Nondistinguished 20:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already given my vote for the article's deletion. There's little point in you trying to harrass me into changing it. And if you continue to delete my comments calling them "personal attacks", there's not much point me bothing to type anything at all!--feline1 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Anyways, if the consensus of the vote turns out to be for "delete", that's fine by me.... --feline1 20:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not my agenda to exclude or include anything in the encyclopedia except for those articles which do not live up to the guidelines and policies set forth by the Wikipedia community. My agenda is not what makes WP:N a guideline for Wikipedia. Instead community consensus is what determines the applicability of certain inclusion and exclusion guidelines. If you dislike notability as a requirement for inclusion of Wikipedia articles, you can discuss your objections at Wikipedia talk:Notability. Here is not the place to do it. Please respond directly to the objections I outlined in my nomination. Nondistinguished 20:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Text removed that was posted by a banned user
- Weak keep An inadequate section is no reason for deletion. His books & magazine aren't separately notable, but he's notable enough. Move the other stuff into here, and reduce it to a size befitting its importance.DGG (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just curious, DGG, by what criteria of WP:BIO do you think makes him notable? Nondistinguished 04:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. From academic notability "The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources. ", which this person has. Even is the works are refuiting is idea, they are acknowleding his theory is there. Turlo Lomon 12:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which "important new concept, theory or idea" are you referring to? Nondistinguished 19:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From the text. The "Saturn Model" envisions a primordial, seasonless "Golden Age" in which a crescent-Saturn hovered over the north pole. This is enough of a theory that people are writing books about it. As such, it is notable under the academic criteria. Turlo Lomon 06:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (post-closure comment by Nondistinguished moved to talk page) Black Falcon (Talk) 22:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From the text. The "Saturn Model" envisions a primordial, seasonless "Golden Age" in which a crescent-Saturn hovered over the north pole. This is enough of a theory that people are writing books about it. As such, it is notable under the academic criteria. Turlo Lomon 06:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which "important new concept, theory or idea" are you referring to? Nondistinguished 19:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - viz fails the standard at WP:BIO. Eusebeus 18:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:12, 13 September 2007 (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.