Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen Kuban

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. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Kuban[edit]

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

I am a little puzzled how this computer programmer could be considered notable DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 01:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 01:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the New York Times article has many paragraphs about this subject and that is just one example of the coverage. Clesrly notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kuban was a key figure debunking the "humans walked with dinosaurs" crank theory pushed by some creationists. Two time Pulitzer Prize winning journalist John Noble Wilford devoted twelve paragraphs to Kuban and his meticulous research in the New York Times. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously enough, the NYT story contradicts the WP article: it says he did convince some of the creationists that that particular piece of evidence was useless. It also says, which our article does not, that this study was the key interpretation of the tracks. Nice example of how a poorly written article can fail to show something is significance -it seemed so insignificant I omitted to actually read the reference. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that Kuban tried unsuccessfully to convince creationists that the tracks weren't human in the article isn't sourced to the NYT article, but rather to this article in Creation/Evolution, which states, "Kuban tried in vain to have creationists view these newly cleaned and mapped trails that constitute their most-cited pieces of evidence for human and dinosaur contemporaneity." This is consistent with the text in the article now, which says, "After cleaning and mapping the trails during his field work there, he tried, unsuccessfully, to convince creationists to look at them." I would also like to politely suggest that anyone planning on nominating an article for deletion *cough* DGG *cough* ensure that they follow WP:BEFORE before doing so. Every morning (there's a halo...) 00:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the article you're describing is from the NCSE, an affiliate of AAAS. That is, this isn't some random blog; it's a notable publication, and Kuban is featured prominently in the story line. 136.62.254.174 (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- significant researcher in a narrow field; the coverage is sufficient for a short article as is the case here. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2018 (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.