220:: Trevor Palmer mentions Talbott once on p. 122 in a group of fellow "Saturnists", hardly a "notable" citation. Talbott is arguably the most active player in the post-Velikovsky era of "Velikovskian and neo-Velikovskian" studies, pursuing his monomania of the "Saturn Hypothesis" for 35 years, who has been successful in obtaining financial support from a small number of entrepreneurs with more money than sound scientific understanding for his multi-media activities (video documentaries, conferences, publishing, private moderated list-serve, etc.). In 1998 he attempted an unregistered stock offering to raise a million dollars for his umbrella organization WholeMind Corp. that envisioned a distance-learning component, which evidently was not successful. Agreed, Kronos was not a meaningfully peer-reviewed journal. Although Talbott's book The Saturn Myth from Doubleday never had a second printing, it is held by 193 libraries according to WorldCat database, compared to John White's Pole Shift from same publisher in the same year which is held by 280 libraries. Cochrane's Martian Metamorphoses is held by only two libraries; de Grazia's Chaos and Creation, by 31 libraries. In comparison, Henry Bauer's 1984 Beyond Velikovsky is held by 554 libraries, de Grazia's 1966 The Velikovsky Affair by 520, Scientists Confront Velikovsky by 1340, Velikovsky and Establishment Science by 147, and Carl Sagan and Immmanuel Velikovsky by 58. Cochrane's book and de Grazia's recent "Quantavolution" series books are self-published.--
300:. Your assertion "Non-mainstream ideas need to be notable to be included in Knowledge" displays the very nub of your agenda, doesn't it? Are you implying that "mainstream" ideas do *not* need to be notable to be included in wikipedia? Basically, you just want to eradicate "non-mainstream" ideas from wikipedia, don't you? Why are you so scared of them? If articles on them are well written, from a neutral point of view, and verifiable, what is the problem?--
349:. He seems to have since departed the community. It's a shame he's not still around, cos I think you would've gotten on with him so well. Man, seems to me you two guys were like peas in a pod - same views, same interests, even exact same writing style, same excellent knowledge of wikipedia policies and guidelines (gee, you picked them up real quick, I must say! Me, I've been here years, and I'm still learning). He gave me a bit of a hard time on the
517:. From academic notability "The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources. ", which this person has. Even is the works are refuiting is idea, they are acknowleding his theory is there.
198:, and neither Ev Cochrane nor Alfred de Grazia are not an independent source both being heavily enculturated in catastrophism circles. I wonder whether Alfred de Grazia deserves a Knowledge article himself as it seems that he doesn't rise to the notability asked for in
404:
I've already given my vote for the article's deletion. There's little point in you trying to harrass me into changing it. And if you continue to delete my comments calling them "personal attacks", there's not much point me bothing to type anything at
140:
326:
account was technically a "sock puppet" by rules of the policy anyways... I don't really see what difference it makes what login name you use anyways, it's only a handle! It's your actual editing style that's the important
382:
It is not my agenda to exclude or include anything in the encyclopedia except for those articles which do not live up to the guidelines and policies set forth by the
Knowledge community. My agenda is not what makes
456:
An inadequate section is no reason for deletion. His books & magazine aren't separately notable, but he's notable enough. Move the other stuff into here, and reduce it to a size befitting its importance.
391:
is what determines the applicability of certain inclusion and exclusion guidelines. If you dislike notability as a requirement for inclusion of
Knowledge articles, you can discuss your objections at
153:
279:: Non-mainstream ideas need to be notable to be included in Knowledge. In particular, you haven't answered the basic point that the article fails to rise to the level asked for of
112:
353:
article, but I guess come to think about it, he did spur us to improve the article and make it more verifiable and neutral. Yep, sure miss that ole' ScienceApologist. --
296:, I recognise your prose style a mile off! LOL You make take that as a compliment if you wish; it is however just intended as a neutral statement of fact, not as a
594:
119:
The subject of this article is an amateur comparative mythologist who has some quirky theories but hasn't received the recognition required for a
418:
I have pointed out that your opinion is contrary to the guidelines and policies of
Knowledge. You have not responded to this. Also,
85:
80:
89:
263:) has a history of conducting witch hunts to eradicate and censor material from wikipedia concerning non-mainstream academia.--
17:
72:
537:
The "Saturn Model" envisions a primordial, seasonless "Golden Age" in which a crescent-Saturn hovered over the north pole.
409:
20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Anyways, if the consensus of the vote turns out to be for "delete", that's fine by me.... --
539:
This is enough of a theory that people are writing books about it. As such, it is notable under the academic criteria.
237:
I think you make an excellent case for deletion right there by establishing the fact that this person isn't notable.
186:'s one and only edit. Additionally, mere mention of something in a book is not enough to establish notability per
620:
392:
36:
255:- the article seems fairly informative and is well referenced. It could be further improved if needed. Moreover
619:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
550:
527:
477:
423:
396:
337:
314:
284:
256:
238:
203:
143:
128:
604:
584:
561:
543:
530:
521:
506:
480:
467:
426:
413:
399:
357:
340:
331:
317:
304:
287:
267:
241:
224:
206:
160:
146:
131:
54:
395:. Here is not the place to do it. Please respond directly to the objections I outlined in my nomination.
346:
345:
Well it doesn't really matter, does it? Let's just say once upon a time there was another editor called
323:
293:
260:
183:
76:
221:
502:
350:
68:
60:
410:
406:
354:
328:
301:
264:
557:
50:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
540:
518:
191:
445:
169:
498:
310:
199:
581:
577:
473:
463:
419:
388:
297:
280:
124:
336:
This is the first time that I ever had contact with you since I started my account.
313:
for conducting witch hunts is a serious offense. You should not be making it here.
195:
157:
123:
Knowledge article. In particular, he, as a subject, does not rise to the level of
106:
492:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
601:
384:
194:, which is not peer-reviewed in the normal sense, is not generally considered a
187:
120:
458:
283:. If subjects of articles aren't notable the articles should be deleted.
141:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Pensée (Immanuel
Velikovsky Reconsidered)
526:
Which "important new concept, theory or idea" are you referring to?
613:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
190:
nor is it a good justification for an encyclopedia article.
154:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Electric universe (concept)
102:
98:
94:
497:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
623:). No further edits should be made to this page.
322:But you already told me (months ago) that your
387:a guideline for Knowledge. Instead community
8:
593:: This debate has been included in the
472:Just curious, DGG, by what criteria of
7:
576:per nom - viz fails the standard at
24:
595:list of People-related deletions
476:do you think makes him notable?
444:Text removed that was posted by
309:Accusing somebody of starting a
168:Text removed that was posted by
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
605:06:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
585:18:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
562:22:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
544:06:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
531:19:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
522:12:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
507:11:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
481:04:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
468:03:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
55:18:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
1:
427:20:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
414:20:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
400:20:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
358:20:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
341:20:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
332:20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
318:20:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
305:20:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
288:19:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
268:21:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
242:19:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
225:16:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
207:17:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
161:16:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
147:16:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
132:15:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
640:
549:(post-closure comment by
393:Knowledge talk:Notability
616:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
422:is not about "voting".
347:User:ScienceApologist
324:User:ScienceApologist
294:User:ScienceApologist
261:User:ScienceApologist
553:moved to talk page)
351:Immanuel Velikovsky
311:sockpuppet account
607:
598:
564:
509:
631:
618:
599:
589:
555:
551:Nondistinguished
528:Nondistinguished
496:
494:
478:Nondistinguished
424:Nondistinguished
397:Nondistinguished
338:Nondistinguished
315:Nondistinguished
292:You are clearly
285:Nondistinguished
257:Nondistinguished
239:Nondistinguished
204:Nondistinguished
192:Kronos (journal)
144:Nondistinguished
129:Nondistinguished
110:
92:
34:
639:
638:
634:
633:
632:
630:
629:
628:
627:
621:deletion review
614:
602:John Vandenberg
535:From the text.
490:
298:personal attack
196:reliable source
83:
67:
64:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
637:
635:
626:
625:
609:
608:
587:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
511:
510:
495:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
271:
270:
249:
248:
247:
246:
245:
244:
230:
229:
228:
227:
212:
211:
210:
209:
164:
163:
152:Also related:
139:: See related
117:
116:
63:
58:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
636:
624:
622:
617:
611:
610:
606:
603:
596:
592:
588:
586:
583:
579:
575:
572:
563:
560:
559:
554:
552:
547:
546:
545:
542:
538:
534:
533:
532:
529:
525:
524:
523:
520:
516:
513:
512:
508:
504:
500:
493:
489:
488:
482:
479:
475:
471:
470:
469:
465:
461:
460:
455:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:a banned user
428:
425:
421:
417:
416:
415:
412:
408:
403:
402:
401:
398:
394:
390:
386:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
359:
356:
352:
348:
344:
343:
342:
339:
335:
334:
333:
330:
325:
321:
320:
319:
316:
312:
308:
307:
306:
303:
299:
295:
291:
290:
289:
286:
282:
278:
275:
274:
273:
272:
269:
266:
262:
258:
254:
251:
250:
243:
240:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
226:
223:
219:
216:
215:
214:
213:
208:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
184:76.209.50.134
181:
178:
177:
176:
175:
174:
173:
172:
171:
170:a banned user
162:
159:
155:
151:
150:
149:
148:
145:
142:
138:
134:
133:
130:
126:
122:
114:
108:
104:
100:
96:
91:
87:
82:
78:
74:
70:
69:David Talbott
66:
65:
62:
61:David Talbott
59:
57:
56:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
615:
612:
590:
573:
558:Black Falcon
556:
548:
536:
514:
491:
457:
453:
443:
442:
441:
276:
252:
217:
179:
167:
166:
165:
136:
135:
118:
51:Black Falcon
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
541:Turlo Lomon
519:Turlo Lomon
182:: This is
499:Wknight94
454:Weak keep
389:consensus
222:Phaedrus7
582:Eusebeus
327:thing.--
113:View log
411:feline1
407:feline1
355:feline1
329:feline1
302:feline1
277:Comment
265:feline1
218:Comment
200:WP:PROF
180:Comment
158:Dawdler
137:Comment
121:notable
86:protect
81:history
578:WP:BIO
574:Delete
474:WP:BIO
420:WP:AfD
405:all!--
281:WP:BIO
125:WP:BIO
90:delete
156:. --
107:views
99:watch
95:links
16:<
591:Note
515:Keep
503:talk
464:talk
385:WP:N
253:Keep
188:WP:N
103:logs
77:talk
73:edit
48:. –
46:keep
600:--
597:.
459:DGG
259:(=
111:– (
580:.
505:)
466:)
202:.
127:.
105:|
101:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
79:|
75:|
501:(
462:(
115:)
109:)
71:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.