Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cremo

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. It's either a no-consensus to delete, or a keep - either one results in the article remaining. Most of the initial deletes have been addressed/changed and while one remains, it appears as if evidence has been presented to address that. Remaining article issues can be addressed with clean-up, notability has been established. TravellingCari 15:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cremo[edit]

Unnotable promoter of pseudoscience (creationism) and conspiracy theories. No assertation or demonstration of importance, lacks sources and has little value. We66er (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I'd say this is borderline keep. The National Center for Science Education review demonstrates that, as far as fringe people go, he is notable. We66er (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons stated above. Being a "challenger" of science isn't worthy of Wiki inclusion. Beemer69 ^chitchat 21:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Neutral ClovisPt (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete:~~ only citation is self-published. No evidence that this individual has garnered notice in creationism/conspiracy theory circles, let alone from "the world at large". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: article is currently written to obfuscate his notability, which appears to be as a Hindu creationist and cryptoarchaeologist. The article needs to emphasise this, and give WP:DUE weight to scientific criticism of his claims (e.g. here & here). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those reviews are already linked in the article. It's just a matter of incorporating what they say. Zagalejo^^^ 04:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that's precisely my point -- giving voluminous mention of talk radio trivia & the topic's self-description, while relegating scathing scientific views & reviews to the ELs is gross WP:UNDUE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Just remember that the article is a work in progress. I'm not submitting it to FAC or anything. I just started poking around with it this weekend. Zagalejo^^^ 06:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep Cremo is at least borderline notable. He's in Gale's Contemporary Authors, has been the subject of some newspaper articles [1], [2], and is discussed in some depth here. Also, his book Forbidden Archeology has been reviewed in The British Journal for the History of Science [3] and appears in at least 446 libraries, according to WorldCat [4]. He has some weird ideas, but he's fairly significant in his "field". Zagalejo^^^ 06:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 18:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: what "field" would that be? His 'academic affiliation' (to the Bhaktivedanta Institute, itself an unknown quantity) is in the field of 'Consciousness studies', which seems to be unrelated to his claims. Also, none of the links you gave yield full-text of the material cited -- meaning we have no indication as to how much depth they cover Cremo in (per WP:NOTE). Therefore, they do not really add much to the discussion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By "field", I was referring to "forbidden archeology" and all that. It's not a legit academic field, but it is an area of interest to creationists and the like. I don't know how long those articles are, but it's clear that Cremo is the subject of each of them, so I think we should err on the side of inclusion. In any case, he has an entry in Contemporary Authors and the Chambers Dictionary of the Unexplained, either of which should be enough to confer notability. Zagalejo^^^ 19:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"'forbidden archeology' and all that" is hardly a useful definition of a "field". Cryptoarchaeology or pseudoarchaeology might be -- but I don't see any mention of him in either of those articles. His views are only of interest to Hindu creationists, not creationists generally. Given all information to date seems to be centred on discussion/criticism of his claims, rather than biographical information on the man himself, I would suggest expansion of the above wikilinked articles to cover his ideas (with WP:DUE weight to the criticism they have received) rather than attempting a biography that would simply be a WP:COATRACK for these claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I put "field" in scare quotes for a reason. Don't fixate on it. There is some more biographical information at Contemporary Authors I could throw in. Zagalejo^^^ 05:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not everything in Wikipedia has to meet strict academic guidelines. What a boring encyclopedia it would be were that true!--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding Hrafn's suggestion regarding "expansion of the above wikilinked articles to cover his ideas". The views of Cremo and ISKCON (who publishes his books) are already given Undue Weight at Hindu views on evolution, since both hold views that are only held by an extreme minority of Hindus. ~ priyanath ^talk 22:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with the sources in the article? Zagalejo^^^ 18:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't have an issue with the sources. I still can't see him meeting WP:BIO. Perhaps you can indicate which entry there he meets. Stifle (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, I just think he passes the general Notability criteria (subject of multiple, independent sources). He has a balanced, multi-paragraph entry in this book and an entry in Contemporary Authors. His books have been reviewed in many places [5], [6], [7], [8], and he's been the subject of several newspaper articles [9], [10]. He's also discussed, in varying length, in these two sources: [11], [12]. Zagalejo^^^ 19:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sure, a lot of people disagree with the theories put forth, but they are notable theories. The sources are not exactly "widely known", but I'm okay with that on this particular "specialist" topic.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article makes specific claims of notability, backed by required sources needed to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zagalejo and Paul McDonald. Banjeboi 00:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zagalejo and Paul McDonald et al. Notable pseudoscientist as shown by many refs above and in article.John Z (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2008 (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.