Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Cruttenden

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Walter Cruttenden

Walter Cruttenden is an investment banker and has its entry here as the founder of the Binary Research Institute, which is also up for deletion. Please consider the two AfDs together. Pilatus 00:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binary model of equinox precession, a POV fork of Precession Pilatus 16:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

And what is wrong with being an investment banker? Or the founder of a research institute??? comment left by anonymous user 65.11.192.128

Since you asked, the fact that his theory and the institute devoted to it have attracted no attention from anyone are reasons that it shouldn't be listed here. Sources that the institure (and its founder) are somehow notable are good grounds for inclusion. Pilatus 00:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - speedy? I'm going to guess that the anon editor is our Walter, am I correct? He's an ex-investment banker and this is his attempt at creating a money spinning cult. Hey L Ron Hubbard managed it! - Hahnchen 00:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete doesnt seem notable. Anon IP isnt helping it very much either. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 00:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ditto on lack of notability. Shauri 01:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, probable vanity spawned from the entry just above. -Splashtalk 01:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, only 577 google. -GregAsche (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Binary Research Institute and delete. No intrinsic notability. Tonywalton  | Talk 01:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Note that the target you suggest is also on AfD. -Splashtalk 02:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity. Amren (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it is currently only a stub. How can the article be developed if it is attacked and shot down as soon as the stub went up. It takes time to attract interested, knowledeable persons who can make valuable contributions. Modern scientific research into this topic is in it's infancy, even though it was known to the ancient Greeks and other ancient civilizations. Modern science isn't going to embrace it overnight. It is, however, gaining more and more recognition, and I think the topic is important enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. I posted this as IP 65.9.1.159 (haven't registered yet).
  • As the previously aformentioned inhabitant of an invisible non-existant planet that happens to revolve around the invisible non-existant binary star that is the focus of the above mentioned fellow who knows a bit too much, I have to say that this is an outrage! No-one is supposed to know about us! Delete! Oh, the Lizard people are on their way! I give them a ring, and they are positively cheesed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC) This vote on the VfD of an American-Business-Hindu-Writer-Mythology stub is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by voting delete!
  • Comment: Now there's stub vandalism, someone must be bored... Sasquatcht|c 04:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete', whether the theory is kept or not, its creator has absolutely no notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Sasquatch, would appreciate it if you would please stop vandalizing my work. Thank you, 65.9.1.159 .
  • Weak Keep. The subject may well be (and probably is) a pseudoscientific crackpot, but he is listed with the writing credit of the film The Great Year, apparently funded or whatever by the Binary whosis, and it';s listed in the IMDB, was narrated by James Earl Jones, and was asserted to have been shown on PBS (and I think I remember something like that). --MCB 06:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Changed my vote, as above, due to lack of verification that the film was shown on PBS or anywhere else. --MCB 18:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-promtional OR -- and there's no trace of this documentary at PBS's website. If Cruttenden had enough money to pay Jones for a little voiceover work, he probably had enough to pay for showing it on a few public TV stations that needed the money, so it proves nothing regarding notability. --Calton | Talk 08:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Dunc|☺ 08:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Quoted in this spacedaily.com article here. Definite delusional, but hey, we have an article on Napoleon. Oswax 10:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete - See the VfD for Binary Research Institute. Non-notable. Oswax 18:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonnotable, self-promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The orginazation itself has less than 100 unique googles.... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 16:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Tonywalton. Owen× ☎ 18:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the article needs time to grow, this is a notable person that requires further detail to information. Piecraft 00:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Some who have voted keep here and at the Institute vote are basing their votes on the existance of the DVD narrated by James Earl Jones. It should be re-stated that no-one knows for sure if the thing has even aired on PBS, which throws into doubt it's notability, and thus the notability of both related articles. In all seriousness, these need to go. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, those opposing these articles should have the ability to simply type: Walter Cruttenden in Google to come up with many sites relating to the man and his research along with the PBS broadcast. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this is a factual and notable person who has already been discussed throughout: [The Great Year] Piecraft 13:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

If this discussion is about the article about THE PERSON, then I would suggest it be kept. If the pseudoscientific theory his "Binary Research Institute" doesn't deserve a place at Wikipedia for being original research then the article about that theory deserves being deleted, but not the stub about this guy. The same about article the film "The Great Year". Now I'm a registered user (BattleTroll)

  • Delete. If the crackpot theories were encyclopedic, Cruttenden should be mentioned on them. I think they're not encyclopedic, and Cruttenden himself does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Quale 08:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, this is obviously a bad faith nomination. These delitionist attitudes are unbelieveably oppressive! The rabid, visceral comments reek of hidden (or not so hidden) agenda and ulterior motives. Why are they are trying so hard to silence and suppress. It's suspicious. Earthian 16:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC) User registered on September 27 and made contributions only to this and related AfDs. Special:Contributions/Earthian
    • People are included in an encyclopedia because of a degree of importance, not because of personal vanity. Instead of crying "Oppression", why don't you list Walter Cruttenden's achievements? Pilatus 17:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I have no reason to list his achievements, they are readily availble on the net for all to see. They were included in the articles, with links, and you deleted them. The fact that you feel the need to stalk me and add the stupid disclaimer above to my contributions in the deletion pages only further proves my assertion that these three nominations you made are in BAD FAITH. Why are you so afraid of Walter Cruttenden, his Binary Research Institute, and the film they produced that you must work so hard to censor them? You vandalized the articles, removing other people's contributions, you hang here 24 hours a day making sure your supress any information that appears. I am no longer suspicious, after reviewing your history here, I am certain that you have hidden agendas and ulterior motives. Furthermore, if one were to apply the unbelieveably strict standards you are setting up for these three articles to all the articles on Wikipedia, half the articles would be deleted immediately, and on further consideration, few of the other half would survive. They'd be lucky if 10% of the articles survived. I repeat, this is BAD FAITH. Earthian 17:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Conflict of Interest - Question: should the person who nominates articles for deletion also be making changes to those articles? In this case, Pilatus has nominated these three articles for deletion - Walter Cruttenden, Binary Research Institute, and The Great Year - and has made extensive changes to them. In most of his changes he leaves behind typos and grammatical errors, broken links, and straggling headers (i.e., after he's removed everything that was under a header), not only messing up other users' work but leaving the article in much poorer shape than it was before. He also deletes extensively, and removes categories and stubs aggressively. He goes in after anyone adds anything to an article and removes everything the other person contributed. He seems to be working to increase the chances for deletion of the articles. In light of this, it would be appropriate, in order to avoid this obvious conflict of interest, for the person who nominated the articles to refrain from modifying them until the decision has been made? Syug 21:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - Most articles up for deletion are not judged upon the quality or quantity or their content, but rather the appropriateness or notability of the topic. Any edits that Pilatus may have made to the content of the article are irrelevant, for he cannot make a worthy topic unworthy by bad grammar or misspellings. Oswax 21:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is exactly zero primary evidence for Cruttenden's notions about the Sun being part of a binary system. There is no excuse for inclusion of this trash in an encyclopaedia, except as an example of pseudoscience/bad science. Comment left by anonymous user 62.64.220.164 who has only participated in this and the three other related articles being nominated for deletion and left the same comment in each.Red herring! Surely it is the content of the comment, not who left it, or where else he left it, that is relevant? 62.64.237.112 15:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Proposal Though I know most would like to see these three artciles deleted, why not merge them altogether into one article describing the phenomenon, the man and the institute (including his film) - as for the title it could be placed under "Binary model of equinox precession" Piecraft 12:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and No to the proposal all of them likely to get deleted --JAranda | yeah 21:42, 2 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.