Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Talbott (3rd 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. L Faraone 20:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Talbott

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Nearly all the sources in the article are primary or unreliable, and not indicative of actual notability in the greater world. From independent sources with a reputation for fact checking I see a few passing mentions but nothing concrete. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Already kept at two previous AfDs. What has changed since then? If he was notable then, he's still notable now. Dricherby (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expanding on my comment above. Plenty of sources are available: Forbidden History spends several pages discussing Talbott's theories; The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe has a few pages of biographical information and discussion of his theories, spread through the book. The Velikovsky Encyclopaedia is not itself a reliable source but cites three reviews of Talbot's 1980 book The Saturn Myth (Publisher's Weekly, Library Journal and Christian Science Monitor, which could be verified by somebody with access to a good enough library, or a subscription, in the latter case. (These reviews are critical of Talbott and, by extension, Velikovsky's ideas so I doubt the Velikovsky Encyclopaedia would have made them up.) The theories are fringe nonsense but I think there's enough coverage of them. Dricherby (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden History and Velikovsky Encyclopaedia are not reliable sources so are irrelevant. "The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe" does not appear to give significant coverage to Talbott (it mentions the Talbotts in conjuction with the events surrounding the more notable Velikovksy). Reviews of books are not reviews of an author, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't claiming that the Velikovsky Encyclopaedia is reliable (indeed, I explicitly said it isn't). I mentioned it because it points to three sources that are reliable but which I was unable to access, since they're 33 years old and not freely available online. Dricherby (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the entries for Immanuel Velikovsky and Alfred de Grazia are justified, then David Talbott merits an entry by virtue of his being the most successful of the next generation acolytes. Granted reliable sources are scarce; but possibly a supportive editor might be able to provide acceptible sourcing for Talbott's recent activities such as membership in the Natural Philosophy Alliance and his leading a large contingent of Thunderbolts Project members as presenters and registrants to the NPA conferences in 2011 in College Park, Maryland, and 2012 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Had Margaret Wertheim attended the 2011 NPA conference, along with 2010, Talbott might well have been featured in her recent Physics on the Fringe along with Jim Carter. Sic transit gloria. Finally, Michael Gordin's description of Talbott's activities on the Velikovsky scene in The Pseudoscience Wars reinforces Talbott's "notability". Phaedrus7 (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC) — Phaedrus7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Notability is not inherited (WP:INHERITED). Why would membership of the Natural Philosophy Alliance indicate notability? I also don't see how speaking at a conference shows notability, many non-notable people speak at conferences. I am non-notable, I have spoken at conferences. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Especially when anyone can join the Natural Philosophy Alliance and any member can submit a paper to be presented at the conference, which appears not to be selective or peer-reviewed. "Might have been included in a popular science book if its author had visited a conference she didn't actually visit" is not a form of notability that is described at WP:NOTABILITY. Dricherby (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only because the article has been nominated for deletion in the past and has survived twice. If I had been in the first two debates, I would have voted to delete, but nothing has changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason by policy, see WP:NOTAGAIN. Consensus changes over time, and it's by discussing things that we realize where the consensus is, it's not by simply deferring to all previous decisions in the past. Bear in mind the last nomination was 4 years ago, and policies have changed considerably since. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2013 (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.