Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Chiu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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--JForget 22:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Chiu

Alex Chiu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

If the unsourced, outrageous claims are ignored, I don't think he'd be notable. Adam Cuerden talk 18:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I agree with Adam Cuerden. STORMTRACKER 94 19:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Feature articles in the San Francisco Weekly, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Georgetown University's paper and the New Zealand Herald, plus passing mentions in the New York Times and Stanford University Daily. He may be a crackpot, but he's a notable one.--Sethacus 21:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Sethacus, famous figure within the San Francisco community. Burntsauce 22:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an interesting case: the article seems a bit of an even split between non-notable unsourced puffery and non-notable unsourced attackery. The claims of "notability"--comparisons to Edison and Einstein--are absurd. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (ugh). A charlatan, but notable enough for James Randi to take notice of. Clarityfiend 01:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. In the realm of wackos, he's a star... one of the first really famous web crackpots. Pinball22 01:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Pinball's right... Alex Chiu is a known whackjob... probably one of the first web whackos. Definitely notable  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Chiu meets WP:BIO, even if a few of his gadgets are currently unsourced. --McGeddon 07:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, unfortunately. Notable internet crank, but the article does need more sources. We have sourced articles on the batshittiness of Gene Ray, Sollog, Barbara Schwartz, and others. Skinwalker 17:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, unfortunately. Notoriety is a form of notability, and we have all kinds of quacks, scammers, criminals (K. Trudeau), etc. represented here. It needs better sourcing and needs to be cut down to about three paragraphs to keep it from being another advertisement for his scams. -- Fyslee / talk 06:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, and I see nothing "unfortunate" about the retention of this article and find many of the comments above to be borderline personal attacks. On second thought, there is nothing borderline about them at all. How very disappointing of us. RFerreira 19:38, 6 October 2007 (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.