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 but stub and rewrite from scratch.. If maintaining a NPOV article proves impossible than the next discussion will undoubtedly reach a different conclusion.
SpartazHumbug! 05:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I've never heard of her before, but after some googling it seems she passes the criteria of "must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Based on these, she is notable (although I'm not going to miss the article if it gets deleted). –
Alenshatalk 17:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep notable fraudster. Plenty of coverage in English and foreigb media sources.
FloridaArmy (
talk) 21:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Plenty of RS there establishing notability as a fraud.
Deathlibrarian (
talk) 02:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete The article is written as a defence of the subjects work, and clearly fails NPOV guidelines. We lack the level of good coverage needed to create a truly balanced article. When articles get into special pleading, and the subject is a living person, the only option is to delete.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 06:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)reply
That may be true, but that doesn't make the subject any less notable. It should be re-written to follow NPOV, not deleted.
Deathlibrarian (
talk) 09:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. Well supported by reliable sources and quite notable. There may be a NPOV problem, but this can be fixed. L293D (
☎ •
✎) 13:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. Just about enough substantive reliable secondary sources - specifically the Seattle Times article (regional press but
WP:RS) and the "Science Left Behind" book, published by
PublicAffairs, a reputable publisher. The federal court case, though a primary source, is worth noting as well.
Fiachra10003 (
talk) 23:06, 5 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.