Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randell Mills

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 redirect to Hydrino theory. Sandstein (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Randell Mills

Randell Mills (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article has a fundamental and I believe irremediable problem. Mills is known only for his hydrino theory, which by common consent is complete bollocks. This article addresses that, referring to the tiny number of people who have actually tested the theory, and all agree that it is bollocks. His company is an object of derision, being founded on the theory. So the principal thrust of the article is to describe, in some detail but from very few sources, why this man is considered a kook. If we were to tone that down, we'd have virtually nothing, because the guy gets under 5,000 Google hits, and the only reliable sources are the ones saying he's a kook. I think this is very unfair; the guy is terribly obscure and we seem to be the top source on him. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Hydrino theory. No biography is needed or wanted but this would serve as a sensible redirect to the theory which appears to be at least vaguely notable (perhaps an AfD on that article will be forthcoming but that would be separate to this). I'd support the deletion of this article and recreation as a redirect if the history is not worth keeping. violet/riga (t) 10:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Violet. MilesAgain (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect - while I personally would prefer that this entire business be purged from the collective memory, Mills has managed to get 50 million from his bollocks and enough press attention to be notable. Now, there used to be two separate articles (hydrino theory and Randell Mills). This is obviously too much, but I think one is necessary. The question is if it should be hydrino theory or Randell Mills. I think putting it under Mills' name is better, since Mills has facts associated with him (that is, he developed the bollocks). But if there is consensus, I won't oppose a move. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Per WP:BLP I'd say that it should be at hydrino theory. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Has Mills done something other than this hydrino theory that is notable? If so then there would be an argument to keep the article, but I don't see anything notable enough to warrant that. violet/riga (t) 22:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There is his history of nonsensical claims (e.g. the hydrino business, a non-effective cancer therapy, etc.), and his actions outside of hydrino theory but related to it (the company, the getting money, the plagiarism). The question is does 'Randell Mills' capture his activities better than 'hydrino theory'. Re. BLP - I'm not sure how to handle the BlackLight Power, plagiarism, etc. material in an article titled 'hydrino theory'. It seems these are tangential to the hydrino nonsense, but relevant for Mills' notability. Michaelbusch (talk) 01:45, 29 December 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.