Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainer W. Kühne
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 of the debate was keep. Sango123 18:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a self-proclaimed expert on time travel, the Lost City of Atlantis, cold fusion, magnetic photons, the arrangement of galaxies in the universe, the Pioneer anomaly, and the torsion tensor. Sheesh. These are all topics that attract the attention of cranks and kooks, WP doesn't deserve this kind of "love and attention" from anon editors. linas 05:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete of course. linas 05:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Over 140k Google hits. Only reasoning provided for deletion is that it could be a target for vandals, which could be said of a number of Wikipedia articles, unless you're nominating because you don't like his ideas, in which case I would vote speedy keep as WP:POINT. BTW, your nomination is typically read as a delete vote. Morgan Wick 05:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I just cleaned up about two dozen vandalisms associated with this fellow (see my edit history as of now); these were the ones that others had missed. Very curious sockpuppetry: identical text added on same day by a large number of IP addresses, no IP address editing more than two articles. These were primarily to articles in physics, but also a few biographies and national parks. No, not trying to make a point, but if you look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, both the current discusions and the archives, you will note that instead of talking about physics, this project spends most of its energy beating away pseudoscientific cranks. There's something wrong about that. WP is a magnet for cranks. I'd like to see some less labor-intensive process for keeping this stuff out. linas 13:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Kuhne seems to have been mentioned in quite a few notable media sources such as Antiquity, Time, National Geograpic, BBC, and ABC.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per TBC. --Coredesat talk 07:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, but someone please find a statement by a recognized source saying he's a crank. As it is, the article rather studiously avoids saying this. --Saforrest 16:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Tree Biting Conspiracy, person is sufficiently notable to pass WP:BIO guideline. Yamaguchi先生 08:42, 29 June 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.