Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Emin Salla

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Irene Ringworm (talk | contribs) at 19:34, 28 March 2007 (→[[Michael Emin Salla]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Michael Emin Salla

This fellow won't go away. The first AfD debate was here. It was speedied five times subsequently. This isn't a recreation, so I'll leave it for people to judge. I remain concerned, as I was two years ago, that we're allowing a platform for a crank. Marskell 09:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete its self promo. looks a scary guy. is also a follower of ufos? you can tell hes done it himself. google comes up with sum intersting things. hes been busy self pomoting--Zedco 10:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete due to no evidence of notability per WP:PROF; all external sources are from his own website. Delete unless appropriate independent sources are added by the end of this AfD. Although I would also take issue with the comments above; the fact that he's a "crank" and a "scary guy" is not per se an argument for deletion. Walton Vivat Regina! 10:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I understand that. To elaborate: I am worried that his reputable academic work could be used as a Trojan horse to allow for his crankish material to be given space on the site. Look at his awards and grants: he basically drops off the radar at the beginning of this decade—I'm assuming because he decided "the extraterrestrial presence" was more important than peace studies. And there's nothing particularly notable about his early work; a solid academic resume, but nothing that demands a Wiki page. Marskell 10:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • i agree with Marskell and i did not say he was a crank, just he looked scary, which was a personal opinion, that ok i maybe shoulnd hav said. but i do still think its self promo and 2 delete.--Zedco 11:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plenty of publications and certainly worth keeping. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.65.123.206 (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - I think it should be kept (no bias on my part towards his picture), it has good data and is a good start for a biography that can be improved upon (I have seen smaller biographies of scientist and yet they never get deleted? i wonder why hehe...) ... I don't feel there is any promotion going on here. Just keep the article b/c it is a good start biography that has the potential to be improved upon (:O) ... the video is a great proof of who he is -Nima Baghaei (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the above user was the creator (and sole editor prior to this AfD) of the article. - Iridescenti 18:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A good start to a biography that will detail what? The seventeen alien races the general public isn't aware of? As I say, he's got a decent academic resume prior to his becoming a crackpot, but nothing in that early work suggests that a Wikipedia page is in order. And his exopolitics material can only be found on his own pages or other unreliable sites. Marskell 18:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 14:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After checking out his books, awards won etc they are all genuine and I'd consider him notable in light of his previous career for the UN and USIP. Just because he has some - er - odd views doesn't mean he should be deleted, otherwise David Icke would need to go as well. Besides, he does seem to be a big name in the UFO community, to go by Google. - Iridescenti 18:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: i added a recent radio show he was interviewed on, on exopolitics (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Yes, looks like a crank to me too, but a notable one. Exopolitics...heehee. Bobanny 22:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are indeed claims of notability so that gets it around the speedy threat. Unless references can be cited to back up those claims, it should be deleted. --Selket Talk 01:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The books are sufficient. The publication of four notable academic books by reputable publishers is more than enough notability. How to deal with his [present career is admittedly a problem. I suggest editing the lede to separate the two in distinct paragraphs. When a distinguished academic makes a fool of himself, he becomes if anything more notable, because really notable folly or even sharply unconventional views will certainly attract attention. It is certainly true that " one can be "worried that his reputable academic work could be used as a Trojan horse to allow for his crankish material to be given space on the site" but deleting the bio because of that looks a little like POV-pushing; there have been many AfDs here where the opponents of some view try to convince themselves that the notable exponents of it aren't really notable .DGG 03:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the second and third and maybe the 4th are published by major reliable academic publishers. I cant say as much for the first.DGG
What I'd be interested in is independent reviews confirming the subject's notability. Simply publishing a book through a major publisher is not a notability claim, IMO. Ditto on his alien ideas. I'm sensible to the fact that kooky ideas, by virtue of their kookiness, may garner a response. Has any reliable source talked about this man? Perhaps the original author knows of some spots? Marskell 08:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added references and excerpts from the readily available reviews to the article.
His work for East Timor is also notable as a international politics in the practical sense service. And I really cannot decide whether his conversion to what most of us would judge as lunatic fringe social science, makes him more or less notable. To me, it makes him more notable. But I agree this is by no means a hard -and-fast judgment or an obvious decision. DGG 01:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for digging up reviews. I still tend toward "successful, but not exceptional" academic, but can see a contrary argument. His "conversion" only makes him more notable, IMO, if third parties have deemed it so. In the first AfD, an anon mentioned that he'd lost tenure; this, which actually supports the "lunatic fringe social science," notes he "lost his status at American University," which would be a kind of perverse, minor notability claim. Perhaps the university itself released something, but I can't find it. Marskell 14:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - i added yet another radio interview with jerry pippin (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Comment - ok i just added a third radio interview with dolphinville radio (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Weak keep WP:PROF doesn't really apply since this guy is more notable for his post-academic "fringe" persona. His academic career wasn't especially notable but, along with Dr. Alfred Webre, he is recognized as a pioneer and leader in the dubious field of exopolitics. Along the lines of Tom van Flandern, this guy is a minor celebrity in a fringe field and meets the notability requirement. Irene Ringworm 19:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Emin_Salla&oldid=118588821"