Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Talbot (author) (2nd nomination)

Michael Talbot (author)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet the standard under WP:AUTHOR for notability Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Original AfD here. jps (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking original AfD - had trouble finding it. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original proposal for deletion removed on basis that there was a previous AfD on this but I can't find it. Retaining 2nd nomination since I've told a few interested parties about the AfD already and want to make it easy for interested parties to find this, but may have been misinformed about existence of first AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Books published by major publishers and reviewed by mainstream and trade-specific publications alike, and it appears he was nominated for a few awards, including a Locus for his 1982 novel. We may need to work a little harder on this one to find some older sources, but he's clearly a noteworthy author. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect/rename to The Holographic Universe, since Talbot's book, being used by mainstream academics as an example of New Age thinking [1], may actually have a bigger footprint than its author does. LuckyLouie (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect would be problematic here only because his 1982 novel was actually nominated for an award. There's not an unambiguous target. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Talbot nailed it, and nothing has happened that invalidates that decision. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Care to point out something specific from that? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is cited in hundreds of books, he has an entry in Gale's Contemporary Authors, and he has a New York Times obituary. Like most pseudoscience, a lot of the coverage for Talbot is in unreliable sources (blogs, youtube videos, discussion forums) but there is a lot of it. In my considered opinion, he meets our notability standards. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article as it stands doesn't make any mention of Locus nomination for his fiction work and provides no citations to verify that his book has any specific relevance in new age circles. The references in the extant article don't really support notability in the same way that the arguments here do. If anybody can provide references to correct those issues it'd go a long way toward abrogating my original concern regarding notability under WP:AUTHOR Simonm223 (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notable books are notable, but it does not mean the author is notable. That is yet to be established, specifically WP:AUTHOR criteria I assume is relevant here is "The person's work (or works) ... has become a significant monument". Where are the sources for that claim? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's number 4a on the list on that page. He clearly meets number 1 -- "The person is ... widely cited by peers or successors" (many other pseudoscientists and crackpots cite him), number 2 -- "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" (his ideas are certainly original and well known) and number 4c "has won significant critical attention" (lots of criticism on skeptical blogs and forums, some skeptical reviews). --Guy Macon (talk) 02:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot use pseudoscientists and crackpots as sources for criteria 1. That's the whole point of WP:FRINGE#Independent sources. There is no indication that his "original idea" is "well known" (the universe as a holograph is an idea that is used by other more serious thinkers), and it certainly is not significant that I can tell. I don't think that the criticism from skeptical blogs and fora are good sources on which to base a biography. In short, your argument isn't very convincing to me. jps (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]