Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan Romanek (2nd 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. -- Cirt (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Romanek[edit]

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

Procedural AfD. This article was recreated some months after it was deleted without undergoing a proper WP:DRV. There is evidence that the article is self-promoting, but there is also evidence of a lot of original research debunking of this guy's equations. In short, not a lot of evidence that Romanek is particularly notable outside the community of UFO-believers. A few news-of-the-weird pieces does not meet our threshhold here at Wikipedia, normally. See WP:FRINGE#Independent sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles for creation group has confirmed that the article was recreated out-of-process and inappropriately: Please see the discussion here. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I created the article for AfC. It's been over 5 months and I really don't remember this one. For that part of the dicussion, see the link above I guess. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. (GregJackP (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Strong keep Clearly notable. Romanek is a frequently mentioned name in ufological lore. I also strongly contend that the references are quite sufficient to provide notability. __meco (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Independent sources are required, not just those associated with "ufological lore". ScienceApologist (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't ABCNews and Rocky Mountain News count as reliable sources? Also if its true that he appeared on Larry King (coverage), I think we can presume he's notable. That said, we shouldn't have an article that mirrors his web site. A factual stub is probably appropriate. I don't think the reliable sources support anything too much longer than that. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 02:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 02:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some more sources, though there were a bunch from a Google news search. More than enough to easily establish notability. Silver seren^C 02:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep the ABC stories show he is considered notable to the general public, total nonsense though it sounds. Even if they did the story on the basis of his being the most absurd of his genre, still he's notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is your keep "weak"? That seems to me like a taint of irrationality from the usually very sensible DGG? __meco (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I use "weak" keep or delete to indicate that I don;t propose to argue about it if anyone thinks the opposite. In this case, I almost said weak delete because it would equally well be seen as a violation of NOT TABLOID. Not everything that a tv station or a newspaper chooses to fill up time or space with is notable, sometimes it can be merely curious. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 28 March 2010 (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.