Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Collins (writer)

:{{la|Andrew Collins (writer)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Collins_(writer) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Andrew Collins (writer)}})

Obscure writer; all sources are either his own stuff or his publishers' stuff. No reliable sources, no credible assertions of notability for this extremely fringey author. Orange Mike | Talk 04:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is still being worked upon with more 3rd party references and sections. Collins research is not stated as facts in this article. He is a widely recognized public figure and being "fringe" does now mean exclusion from the mainstream. The writers body of work should be represented on wikipedia. It is up to the reader to use critical judgement when analysing his written material. John Franzén 05:08, 22

December 2017 (UTC)

Added the categories Pseudoarchaeology, Pseudohistorians and Category:Pseudoscience so there would be no confusion as to the topics that Andrew Collins writes about.

John Franzén 06:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

:Why did you add :Category:Pseudoscience? The scope of the category specifically excludes individuals, and we have a category called :Category:Advocates of pseudoscience for such writers. Dimadick (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Lacks notability. Alexbrn (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Added Bio-stub to mark this biography as uncomplete and under work. John Franzén 05:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Delete not finding much in the way of reliable sources. Not enough to support notability. MrBill3 (talk) 07:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Added 3rd party sources removed unreliable sources and added others, addressing Orangemike's and MrBill3's concerns for deletion. More sources are on the way. This being my first article I see now that I made a mistake in publishing the article too soon! (John Franzén (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC))

::{{replyto|John Franzén}} the problem isn't the article as such, it's the subject. Consider perhaps WP:42. Alexbrn (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - Although he is English, the Andrew Collins mentions I can find in large English papers are about other people with the same name; indicating a lack of notability. I see a reference about a mention on Hancock's website, but that is in-universe fringe. —PaleoNeonate – 17:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Delete this guy is the definition of fringe theorist, and there is just not enough reliable source coverage of him to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• (with some regret) Keep because people will come across his writings and not realise they are FRINGE. Such people need exposing as cranks. His writings appear to be pseudo-history. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

::Although we'd need reliable sources discussing him (including criticism)... —PaleoNeonate – 07:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• delete I don't see that there is enough significant and independent coverage to meet WP:GNG or that WP:NAUTHOR is met. My own search didn't turn up significant independent reporting on this Andrew Collins as an author or on him as an archaeologist. It is not Wikipedia's job to expose cranks. That is original research. It would be different if there were articles about him being "a crank", but there isn't even that.Sandals1 (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:TNT. His appearances in Ancient Aliens suggest he might be a notable crank, but if so the searches described above haven't proven it, and the entire article is written in a credulous WP:INUNIVERSE style that would require ground-up rewriting to be encyclopedic. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.