Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Veith

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 07:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Veith

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

Obscure creationist. No third party sourcing. No indication that topic meets WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Google News/Books reveals almost no reliable coverage on this Walter Veith. Related article also up for AfD at WP:Articles for deletion/Amazing Discoveries. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. no third party sources. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No 3d party sources I can find. EEng (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the sources may be ok for documenting non-controversial facts about the subject, they are primary (one is the subject's own web site, another an organization of questionable notability that the subject was involved in founding) and therefore cannot be used to justify the notability of the subject. So, there is no evidence that the subject passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of this article recounts his legitimate scientific work. However, WoS shows an h-index of only 8 and WorldCat shows holdings of his books as: "Diet and Health" at 166; "Genesis Conflict" at 9; and "Truth Matters" at 4. These results do not suggest sufficient impact by or current standards. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 03:20, 13 January 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.