| Revision as of 17:45, 29 March 2022 editMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:41, 11 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| Non notable, not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. We can't possibly catalog every crackpot theorist and give them a platform for their asinine, out-of-touch "theories" | Non notable, not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. We can't possibly catalog every crackpot theorist and give them a platform for their asinine, out-of-touch "theories" | ||
| :'''Speedy Keep'''. This afd sounds like a POV issue. Levitt clearly meets requirements of ]. -] 15:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | :'''Speedy Keep'''. This afd sounds like a POV issue. Levitt clearly meets requirements of ]. -] 15:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Speedy Keep''' per Jcbarr. --]-] <sup>]</sup> 15:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | :'''Speedy Keep''' per Jcbarr. --]-] <sup>]</sup> 15:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :''' Speedy Keep''' As much as I may disagree with some of the what the person may have to say, he is notable and I cannot stand with you on this. Misplaced Pages is for NPOV articles, not a soapbox for a viewpoint no matter how worthy.] 15:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | :''' Speedy Keep''' As much as I may disagree with some of the what the person may have to say, he is notable and I cannot stand with you on this. Misplaced Pages is for NPOV articles, not a soapbox for a viewpoint no matter how worthy.] 15:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Keep'''. I see no reason why this guy is not notable enough. After all, he seems to have a New York Times bestseller. Also, it doesn't look like the article especially propagates his theories. – ] 16:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | :'''Keep'''. I see no reason why this guy is not notable enough. After all, he seems to have a New York Times bestseller. Also, it doesn't look like the article especially propagates his theories. – ] 16:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 17:41, 11 February 2023
- 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 of the debate was speedily kept. This was contested apparently, but it's very obviously the right thing to do. Friday (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Steven_Levitt
Non notable, not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. We can't possibly catalog every crackpot theorist and give them a platform for their asinine, out-of-touch "theories"
- Speedy Keep. This afd sounds like a POV issue. Levitt clearly meets requirements of notability for an author. -Jcbarr 15:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per Jcbarr. --D-Day 15:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep As much as I may disagree with some of the what the person may have to say, he is notable and I cannot stand with you on this. Misplaced Pages is for NPOV articles, not a soapbox for a viewpoint no matter how worthy.Coffeeboy 15:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I see no reason why this guy is not notable enough. After all, he seems to have a New York Times bestseller. Also, it doesn't look like the article especially propagates his theories. – Krun 16:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- 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.