Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruggero Santilli

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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruggero Santilli

Ruggero Santilli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article, as currently written, has serious problems with Wikipedia:Attribution. The sources are self-published material from his vanity press Institute for Basic Research (also nominated). His claim to notability is tenuous at best; perhaps "notoriety" would be a better term for his stature within the pseudoscience community. -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 22:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for some of the notability criteria that he meets. Also see [1]. As for the quality of the article, Deletion processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or Neutral Point of View (NPOV) debate is generally an abuse of process. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a science textbook. Those people repeatedly nominating articles for deletion because they're about hoaxes or pseudoscience are seriously missing the point. — Omegatron 01:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—I believe he's a notable crank/fringe scientist. I have attempted to improve the article and have added some non-self-published sources. Spacepotato 01:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not as much in the news as he used to be, but once N, always N. I agree with Omegatron's general attitude towards articles such as this. Our main responsibility is to make sure the status of the work --as given by RSs--is fairly indicated, and it is.DGG 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And even if it wasn't, that wouldn't be criteria for deletion; that would be criteria for fixing the POV. — Omegatron 18:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Wikipedia is a Encyclopedia and per Once Notable Always Notable. This man had more than 15 minutes of fame, which we cannot say for most "serious(sic.)" scientists we have articles about Alf^Photoman 16:08, 9 March 2007 (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.