Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dewey Bernard Larson

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 delete. Keep arguments do not reflect policy based arguments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dewey Bernard Larson

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

Fails WP:BLPFRINGE. Not enough notice for a Wikipedia article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dewey B. Larson jps (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPFRINGE concerns living persons, therefore objection by jps is irrelevant to Dewey B. Larson.

While taking care to guard against possible implications of real-life harm to the reputation of a living person is not a concern here, the general point that this is the biography of a non-notable person stands. jps (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Click show to see five points made to me via e-mail by User:Pictorex (published here with his permission). I have lightly edited some of the writing, but hope this fairly represents his position on the matter of notability. Note that I am not convinced by his arguments, but would like to provide the opportunity for him to make them and he preferred to have me post them on his behalf as he is not comfortable contributing to Wikipedia directly.jps (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DBL’s notability is sufficiently established not just by numerous book reviews, some quite extensive, cited in the article. Some of the book reviews were quite in-depth (Indian Journal of Physics, review of Quasars and Pulsars). The Case Against the Nuclear Atom was reviewed by Isaac Asimov.
The journal Reciprocity, which published contributions building on the theoretical structure for some two decades. This journal had no connection to DBL other than the editors’ willingness to accept for publication articles building on the theoretical structure established by him, which other journals rejected as a matter of policy. Reciprocity provided a platform for publication of papers relating to his work, some of them critical. Publisher was a bona-fide registered scientific society. Reciprocity was known to its subscribers, of which there were about 1500 at its peak. Providing a platform for researchers was a necessity since standard journals would not even consider contributions not based on the standard assumptions.
the work of Dr. K.V.K. Nehru of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad, building on as well as criticizing/revising DBL’s work satisfies the notability criterion. K.V.K. Nehru’s work was noticed by those who read it, or at least purchased the journal in which it was published, i.e., many thousands. He was not a famous person but a professor at a respectable university in India, thus known to fellow faculty and students, not to a wider public.
an entirely independent journal, Frontiers of Science, published a lengthy article by DBL (Vol III, No. 5, July-August, 1981). Frontiers of Science was a typical popular glossy magazine catering to a lay audience interested in unconventional ideas. Elizabeth Philip, the editor, thought Larson’s article interesting enough to publish as a cover story. Publisher was Bill Bonner. They also published on Velikovsky, the Rosewell Incident, etc. Frontiers of Science was admittedly a “fringe” publication, but the “fringe” it served was obviously quite large, as it had a reasonably wide circulation, thus satisfying the notability criterion. They had a niche readership and catered to it. Publisher is still active by the way: http://theagora.com/about-bill-bonner/
Also notable is "The Ra Material: An Ancient Astronaut Speaks (Law of One)", published in the early 1980s, widely read and still in print; it includes an endorsement of DBL’s system of theory. Yes, it’s all nonsense, something we can probably agree on, but it was very popular and influential in its day and still gets a sizable audience.

Delete. Nothing changed from the first afd, refs don't stack up. Szzuk (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2018 (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.