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. Davewild (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard L. Thompson[edit]

Richard L. Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Recreation of a non-notable article. Article was deleted. The individual is still not notable. Ism schism (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment—this may be useful as well: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is a developing biography of the Hare Krishna movement's most prominent critic of mainstream science. Though personally I think his views were hogwash, I believe that we ought to have a well-referenced biography of him. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep—in addition to the numerous sources already in the article (which admittedly is kind of a hash), there was a 20 page review of forbidden archeology in social studies of science: stable jstor link. clearly author meets gng.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 06:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is one review of a co-authored book enough to meet WP:GNG? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The Timoshuk piece cited in footnotes indicates an international scholarly interest in Thompson's views, further evidenced by several academic reviews of one of his books, Forbidden Archeology. Adherents of fringe views are sometimes the target of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT and I wonder if this might not be the case here. Carrite (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - For the record the nominator is incorrect, close of the previous challenge ultimately ended as No Consensus, not Delete. Carrite (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article had been deleted as stated but the article was reinstated at a later date and the concensus changed from Delete to No Concensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For the same reason as the last time; he article has little merit as a stand alone article. He does not appear to be notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Thomson is notable look how many references are on the article already, by the way a whole section could be added about his alien studies. He authored a book on extraterrestrial life and the ancient astronaut theory, his book has been reviewed, atleast 6 sources for that online, and his work on aliens been widely read by UFO enthusiasts. Alienspaceships (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC) — Alienspaceships (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep Thomson is notable, also it is not a "recreation" of deleted article. Wikid^as© 19:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable by the sheer volume of his publications alone, not to mention references to his works and their impact found in Google Scholar [1], [2], [3]. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2011 (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.