Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duncan Cameron (time travel)

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 15:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Cameron (time travel)

The only sentence that even attempts to establish notability starts with the word "Allegedly" Deville (Talk) 03:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, WP:VANITY, WP:V and likely WP:HOAX --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Google search of name and "Montauk" yields 700 hits. Ifnord 03:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not clear about whether this man is trying to pass himself off as a sailor who was on board the USS Eldridge. There's not enough information to determine notability, and anyway, it's probably crankery. Brian G. Crawford 04:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable enough con man or crackpot. Article should be retitled , current form is NPOV, and evidence of debunking added to satisfy NPOV requirements. Refer to Philadelphia Experiment. If it weren't for the movie and the related X-Files episode(s), he wouldn't be notable; but in their shadow he's notable -- becoming notable by parasitism is still becoming notable (cf Kevin Federline). Monicasdude 05:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reserve comment I would vote keep per Monicasdude if his assertions of notability can be backed up. Has Cameron or his lectures attracted the attention of any notable paranormal debunkers or been covered in any way by independent media? For borderline notabilty merge and redirect to Philadelphia Experiment. Reserving comment per addition of facts. Thatcher131 05:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly not even notable for being a crank. David | Talk 08:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- non-notable crackpottery. The El Reyko 09:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Eusebeus 10:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless Monicasdude can really prove this guy is also married to Britney Spears. Proto||type 10:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, hoax unless Monicasdude can verify this information. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ---CH 23:47, 1 April 2006 (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.