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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Radius Hudson[edit]

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

This is a disputed A7 over a fringe theorist. Many books are cited, but I'm not convinced there's enough significant coverage of this person to establish notability, particularly as strong claims need strong sources. Bringing this article to AfD to attempt to resolve the dispute. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if the cited books could be seen as reliable sources – which they almost certainly can't (one of them's a novel, for Christ's sake) – they would only establish the notability of Hudson's discovery, ORMUS. None of them focus on Hudson himself, and therefore don't amount to significant coverage (WP:GNG: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail..."). DoctorKubla (talk) 09:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need more sources like this[1] and less like what are in the article. I can't see any more good coverage, though. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I have used that and another 4 newspaper sources to provide good, in depth coverage. There are more sources for this person than there are grains of sand in the sea. I think it is important for Wikipedia to educate people about him. Goldfringer (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If anything, this should be moved to be an article about ORMUS, which does seem to be a widely-touted miracle cure, even if the claims made for it are preposterous. Incidentally I am the editor who csd'd the article, but in retrospect it does deserve an afd.TheLongTone (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by article creator Good idea. I have created the page over at Monoatomic gold. With the additional newspaper sources, I still consider Radius Hudson's notability passes WP:GNG and oppose a merge. Goldfringer (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Goldfringer (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Goldfringer (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a complete aside, do we really, really need 18 references to cite one sentence? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, the flakyness of the statement is directly correlated with the number of refs, so I'd say yes...TheLongTone (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the record is 172 references for one sentence (it's no longer like this). Double sharp (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Many of the references are not reliable sources and, independently, they don't seem to establish notability. Bovlb (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete somebody who is known for "monoatomic gold" spelled with capital letters cannot be taken seriously by any serious person, and unless his opinions receive any attention this person does not deserve an article. Nergaal (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nergaal. Double sharp (talk) 15:04, 29 January 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.