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. Courcelles 16:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Winter[edit]

Dan Winter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:PROF. Unsurprisingly, since this appears to be a puff article about a fringe scientist who may have created one particular fractal pattern or two. Prod contested by article creator. Ray^Talk 17:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Fringe subjects require nontrivial coverage in mainstream sources to provide a properly neutral and objective point of view. In this case, I did find one source [1] but I don't think it's enough. And WP:TNT may be relevant, too: the article as written is overly credulous and unencyclopedic to the point where there may be nothing in it worth saving. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think there is some merit in Winter's wave pattern theories and experiments which deserve the right to be expressed. Constantine Kravotkis (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Constantine Kravotkis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• • Please see WP:VALINFO. We're not here to debate whether fractal golden-ratio brain wave quantum gravity is a good idea (or an idea at all rather than mere buzzword soup), nor whether Winter should be famous for having these ideas, but rather whether he already is famous for them. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fuzzy fringe with no evidence of notability. Subject's web site is worth a look to get more of a flavor. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. WP:FRINGE all the way (see also the youtube page, alphabet of angels...). The claims of weblinks and downloads to his page are bogus. Sulfurous but non-notable personal history (per own page). Search for links and reviews reverberates among a small number of like fringe sources. I don't see WP:GNG.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Self-promoted New Age charlatan. EEng (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2013 (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.