Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franklin Felber

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. - Mailer Diablo 06:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Franklin Felber

Okay, this person's claim to fame is that he's published (electronically, not in any scientific journal) a four-page paper that theorizes on an "antigravity beam". Originally a probable WP:VAIN, this article has, thanks to some intelligent, thoughtful contributions, become a forum for critically evaluating the good doctor's assertions. Said assertions have now been so thoroughly deflated there seems to be no further reason for this page to exist, at least not on WP. Not a shred of notability remains. Pagana 05:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Passes WP:WEB due to his having gained significant press coverage for some kind of "anti-gravity" discovery [1][2][3], and with that great notoriety within his field. Delete. Per nom, and "Um..." tmopkisn ^tlka 06:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Um...Respectfully, I have to point out that these citations are (as discussed in the article) permutations of the same paid press release. This press release is extensively analysed in the article itself, which reveals that the impressive-sounding "Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin" is not an academic institution but a subsidiary of a fringe-science company. In fact, when I stripped the text of the press release (in all languages) out of a Google search, I ended up with only 27 hits for "Franklin Felber"--hardly a hallmark of notoriety. --Pagana 07:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right, sorry about that, I did seem to see the same words alot, heh, I've changed my vote accordingly. tmopkisn ^tlka 19:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Pagana. WP:WEB is completely irrelevant, as this is a biographical article. His only claim seems to be this controversial (ie, questionable) preprint, which I don't think is quite enough. JPD (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • When I said WEB I meant BIO, but yeah, you're right, WEB is irrelevant in this situation. tmopkisn ^tlka 19:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Pagana. NawlinWiki 14:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Pagana. --Kristjan Wager 18:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Is this "grav beam" notorious enough that its inventor should be notable as a kook or pseudoscientist? If so, notability is established, if not, away with it. --Svartalf 18:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Nope...Subject appears to have a single instance of this announcement, not a verifiable history of efforts and/or assertions. If he had been notable on terms of pseudoscience itself (re: John Titor, etc), I wouldn't have AfD'd. --Pagana 18:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I cannot see that this passes WP:BIO. :) Dlohcierekim 23:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, he is to present some earthshaking discovery. The article is more about his paper than him. Delete now and recreate if he becomes notable. :) Dlohcierekim 23:58, 7 August 2006 (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.