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 no consensus. This has been relisted 3 times, and no consensus has been reached. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 15:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Marinov[edit]

Stefan Marinov (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)

Vanity bio of a nonnotable confused scientist Staszek Lem (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - badly fails WP:PROF. Other than morbid curiosity, why is this even here? Bearian (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not one reliable source in the article, and searching turns up evidence that he wrote articles and books but no info about him. Some of his articles appeared in Springer publications, and one is cited over 70 times. The books I can find are mostly held in <10 libraries. The publisher of his English-language books seems odd: it's located in Graz, Austria, but the name of the publisher is Italian ("Est-Ovest Editrice Internazionale"). None of the books that I looked at has an ISBN even though they are from the 70's when ISBNs were definitely in use. This translates to poor distribution of his works in the Western market. The other interesting thing is that one of the people who cites him is another very strange scientist up for AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Paul_Wesley. LaMona (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - An unusual and highly entertaining article, but unfortunately this doesn't meet the notability guidelines, as evidenced by the fact that nearly all references in the article are publications by the subject himself. I suspect this article was written by a family member, as it is mostly WP:OR. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Does not quite meet WP:Prof#C1 with an h-index of 11 but this bizarre story passes WP:GNG in the area of psychopathology. A notable fringe topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • How come it pass WP:GNG without a single independent reference? (not counting the obit, but it says nothing but platitudes and unsupproted claims). 03:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:ITSNOTABLE. You need to actually provide a reason why it's notable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:PERX. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. notable, though not under WP:PROF. I tend to bias any impression we may give of bias towards conventional topics by including articles on unusual people, even if the documentation is a little less than ideal. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Coverage of this fringe theory in Economist 1977 is a reliable source for GNG (not WP:PROF). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perhaps as this seems enough for an article. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Whereas he doesn't meet the criteria for a highly cited academic, perhaps his other contributions to the science (i.e. a paradigm shift in his research area) should be elaborately clarified. Nevertheless, the article should be revised, as an illustration what does it suppose to mean that he is known for Youtube?? Arashtitan 15:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment could one of the above editors please provide the independent reliable sources that cover him? The only thing I can locate is this: [1]. I don't think that is enough on its own. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at best as the current article seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeated vote

• Comment. Article is certainly interesting and this seems to be at the root of many of the keeps. Mscuthbert seems to be the only one that mentioned a good secondary source, thought I don't see it in the article. I would certainly be inclined to keep were it not for the unavoidable fact that almost all of the enormous source list is stuff written by the subject. Agricola44 (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Intriguingly, they recently retweeted the article: [2] which links to the original: [3]: "The organiser is Mr Stefan Marinov of the Sofia Laboratory for Fundamental Physical Problems. His physical ideas are on the verge between originality and crankiness but are plausible enough to have attracted interest among just a few more orthodox physicists." I think that reposting it 38 years later might count as two different citations? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2016 (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.