Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth L. Kuttler (second nomination)

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 13:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth L. Kuttler

First Deletion Reason: Non-notable conspiracy theorist. No reliable sources cited in the article. Violates WP:BIO Morton devonshire 21:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN. The article centers on his opinion about an event that is outside his area of expertise. More cruft. --Tbeatty 00:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, as an academic he wrote two analysis textbooks and some papers, but really not more notable than the average academic. The article only exists because of his conspiracy work which seems to consist of one paper that he doesn't even list in his CV.GabrielF 01:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable. I threw the article a bone and made a proper cite for the one footnoted item. The Journal of 9/11 Studies claims to be peer-reviewed. Still crufty. Crockspot 01:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Only "notable" act seems to be his support for the 9/11 denier movement. --Peephole 04:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, article doesn't even attempt to assert notability, and there is no third-party press coverage and/or recognition listed.--Rosicrucian 20:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 01:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN, fails BIO.--MONGO 11:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per non and GabrielF. This article's main assertation of notability is "He believes the official explanations of the collapse of the world trade center towers [sic] do not adequately explain what was observed." Well, so does my plumber. Can I put up an article about him? --Aaron 15:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable per WP:BIO. --Aude (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ken is a good mathematician but no stronger than several other mathematicians in his (and my) own department who lack Wikipedia entries. His WTC7 paper is on the level of an extra credit problem in high school physics and analyzes a scenario (top-down pancaking) that no one maintains is even close to being correct, so the time calculations it produces are irrelevant. 128.187.129.171 15:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:45, 11 October 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.