Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Massey

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 delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Keith Massey

Keith Massey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Created by User:Keithamassey, so WP:Vanity; He has a few articles published, mostly in small or non-important journal. The reference notes are from the things he published. His book which claims that "THE PHAISTOS DISK [is] CRACKED!" was published by a vanity-press "Massey Electronic Publishing" and it looks like pseudoscience to me, and even some of his journal articles appear WP:FRINGE. (for instance his claim that the "substratum within Romanian exhibits Italic but not strictly Latinate characteristics" is clearly against the scientific consensus) bogdan (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Two ghits for Massey Electronic Publishing, which means that this author is even less notable. Fails WP:N. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}_{Strange Frequencies} 13:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

But who determines what a "small or non-important journal" is? The particular article called "fringe" and "clearly against the scientific consensus" was published in a peer-reviewed journal sponsored by a major university. (http://web.fu-berlin.de/phin/). If the scholar additionally dabbles in the controversial topic of the Phaistos Disk and self published views on it, that doesn't invalidate legitimately published research in other fields. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalonia73 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Publishing an article (or even more) in a peer-reviewed journal does not entitle one to have a wikipedia article. Please read WP:PROF. bogdan (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• weak delete Interesting career. He does have a suitable academic qualification, with a 1998 U. Wisconsin Ph.D. thesis on "The concord of collective nouns and verbs in Biblical Hebrew: A controlled study"--apparently never published in full or in part. Two or three of his publications were in respectable though very specialised journals; there is no inherent reason a journal would not publish speculative articles from someone with his degree. The rest is essentially self published. The Phaistos Disk & Kensington Disk work is no weirder than some of the other work there. DGG (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• no delete I have no idea on how to comment on here, but I think this is the right way. Anyways, as a student of history, it is my duty to understand the biases of the author I learn from. Keith Massey has made some interesting assertions, and to present those assertions in a clear context, it is required that I understand his biases, and wikipedia enables me to do it, using his biography. He has made assertions that have been noticed by many, and if someone was to write a paper on those assertions, it is necessary for them to learn of his prejudices and wikipedia could aid one in learning them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.55.242 (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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.