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) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Van Flandern[edit]

Tom Van Flandern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

This page is essentially the result of a running battle between User:6324xxxx and User:Mikevf both of whom appear to be accounts which exist only to fight over this page. Despite recent inpout from other users it seems very unlikely that a useful article will emerge from this and so I nominate it for deletion. Artw (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After review of the Wiki:AfD page, I don't see how your two points above meet the guidelines for nominating this article for deletion. However, for any interested parties, there is a proposed revision of the TVF article on his talk page for comment and review. Akuvar (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sufficient notability (Wired.com, Salon.com), it was resolved and explained in the first AfD, I agree with the result of the first nomination. AfD is not a good place to resolve a running battle over an article. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why is this issue being raised again? Everything in the first AfD remains applicable and relevant. Asked and answered; move on. -- Trowbridge (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ditto the above comments, a running argument about content is not a reason to AfD an article (see wiki article on Jesus Christ). Also this is the second nomination for deletion, what has changed to bring this up again? Akuvar (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 143 returns on google scholar and 137 on google books.--Termer (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although he has undoubtedly espoused some fringe theories, he does seem to have been notable in astronomy (eg his contributions are discussed in "Sky and ocean joined: the U.S. Naval Observatory, 1830-2000" (Cambridge University Press) by Steven J. Dick, C.U.P. [1] and "The Cambridge planetary handbook" (C.U.P.) by Michael E. Bakich [2]). Mathsci (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Good article; needs work. No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | ☮✌☮ 18:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - just because someone is a nutter, doesn't mean they aren't notable enough for us to cover them. That said, this article needs some work, and BLP is a concern. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Van Flandern passed in January of 2009. Akuvar (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2010 (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.