Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antony Garrett Lisi

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 per WP:SNOW, possible WP:POINT too; no real reason for deletion given. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Antony Garrett Lisi

Antony Garrett Lisi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Antony Garrett Lisi is not a legitimate physicist. He is not employed by any reputable research institution and does not publish in peer-reviewed journals of any kind. His work is of no consequence to the progress of physics other than as an annoyance. He does not meet the criteria for notability by any stretch of the imagination. Authoritative information source (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is supposed to accept the judgment of an anonymous authority? Tom Ruen (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is getting 150 to 200 hits per day, [1] - over 6,000 reads already this month. Given the publicity he has received, and this public interest, the article satisfies WP:N. Jheald (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Its not a good idea to use that as a notability barometer. People who would like to have an article kept will sit all say clicking on the article to pump its hits. As a matter of fact, it will end up wasting huge amounts of bandwith and should be removed totally. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. A notability poll has just been executed on the article's talk page itself. The tone of the AfD serves as flame bait at best. The originator of this request has had problematic edits in the past (see here), though some of his edits were moderate (e.g. this one to the Luboš Motl article). Koeplinger (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep the small number of contribution (14) of the submitter may point to a speedy keep. --Salix alba (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. There seems to be nothing about this article that justifies deletion. Per Koeplinger and assuming good faith, the reason for this AfD does sound suspicious. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Snow? Colonel Warden (talk) 16:33, 1 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.