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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Talbot (author)[edit]

Michael Talbot (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(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:AUTHORSimonm223 (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]

You appear to misunderstand what a reliable source for determining notability is. For example, if we found that a particular crackpot was extensively discussed in the publications of Immanuel Velikovsky, Ken Ham, Erich von Daniken, Jenny McCarthy and Willis Carto, that would clearly establish notability even though none of those individuals are reliable sources for anything other than their own opinions. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If he's been cited by the people you mentioned above that would support notability; but again there was no mention of this in the article. If it survived one AfD on the premise of notable subject with an article that doesn't currently meet notability criteria but can be improved to meet those criteria and then nothing is done to improve it, perhaps it is time to delete it until such time as somebody comes along who is willing to write it right. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For an idea? Perhaps. For a biography? Color me dubious still. jps (talk) 17:29, 15 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]

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

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

• Keep. I've found mention of him in more than a few academic texts published by reputable places such as SUNY Press and the like. One of his books was also reviewed in The Atlantic, which would also be considered a RS. Now the thing about books being notable is that if someone's work has received coverage in reliable sources, that can translate into notability for the individual. In many cases it makes more sense to have one article for the individual rather than for each separate book, especially if the person's books predominantly cover one subject. It's far easier to have one article than many individual novels and it happens quite frequently. When it comes to establishing notability, what they write about is of little importance. What matters is coverage- which we have. (By this I don't mean that we shouldn't take care in what we write in the article or how we write it, just that when it comes to AfD purposes the guy could be writing about breeding racing snails. Him being into things that would make him a "weirdo" by many standards should not predispose people to assume that reliable sources do not exist.) I'm not even finished looking and I'm finding where he's used as a reference relatively often in this subject, sometimes by peers and sometimes in academic texts. ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] ) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.