Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dewey B. Larson

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 spatially and temporally deleted. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dewey B. Larson[edit]

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

Fails general notability criteria and WP:BIO; no evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Poorly referenced for at least 3 years now without improvement. As best I can tell, this individual is known only for his idiosyncratic beliefs about physics, which do not notable as they don't seem to have been covered or addressed by any independent, reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 16:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, he doesn't seem notable at all except among a few crackpots for his "theory" (he appears to have no physics background). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another guy who's gone and solved everything leaving nothing for physicists to do. We need to silence him now before the WP:TRUTH gets out. N^oformation ^Talk 18:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and MastCell. Agricolae (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too few sources to make a notable crank. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I'm not voting on this as I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to gauge just how cranky this man's theories were. But for the article to be in this undeveloped state after FIVE YEARS suggests that it isn't going to get any better.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything for "North Pacific Publishers", who published Larson's books, that isn't one of Larson's books. I suspect they're self-published, meaning we just have someone who self-published some books. Hardly notable. 86.178.194.188 (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing but brief mentions of his book titles found in secondary sources, not enough notability for his own article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2011 (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.