Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Humphreys

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Russell Humphreys}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Russell Humphreys}})

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NPROF among others. All sources seem to be to those non-compliant with WP:FRIND. Moreover, quite a few of them are to the subject himself. jps (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, Science, and Astronomy. jps (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. The only case for notability appears to be as a fringe theorist. But per WP:FRINGE and WP:V, we need reliable sources in mainstream sources to provide a neutral mainstream view on these theories, and I found none. If we had enough reliable (mainstream) reviews of his book we could retarget this as an article about the book with a redirect from his name, but I didn't find any of those either. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• :Comment YEC isn't "fringe" in any meaningful sense, and Young Earth creationism doesn't label it as such; it's a religious perspective, and WP:FRINGE directly addresses this: {{tq|For example, creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed.}} Thus, comments on his scientific ideas by theologians would be addressing the topic directly and potentially count towards notability, and the search can't stop with scientists. Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::"Being at odds with pretty much all sciences it touches" is a meaningful sense of "fringe". So, yes, YEC is very much fringe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• :::Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism, Hinduism... all are at odds with pretty much all the sciences they touch. But they're not fringe because fringe is science absent religion, rather than religious perspectives on scientific topics. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::::WP:FRINGE is not {{tq|science absent religion}}. I promise you. If you disagree, go ask around and see if there is consensus for your position. jps (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
• :::::Is the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ fringe? The parting of the Red Sea? The direct divine revelation of the Quran or the Book of Mormon? If you think any of them might be, that's an intellectually honest but encyclopedically useless answer in that it would require religious topics be described as if they were not. If none of them are, then how do you articulate an intellectually consistent differentiation between FRINGE and unproven (and arguably unprovable) religious claims? Jclemens (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::Yes. Claims that Jesus Christ bodily rose from the dead or that the Red Sea literally split apart as it is depicted in, say, Hollywood blockbusters inasmuch as such phenomena are claimed to have occurred in an empirically verifiable way are fringe claims. That is, they are not verified by the relevant academic scholars in the field and it is only cultists outside of the academic WP:MAINSTREAM who claim otherwise. That it also happens to be an article of faith is irrelevant. When there are empirical claims being made, the domain of interest are those academic subjects which study empirical claims. The "divine revelation of the Qu'ran" is not an empirical claims as far as I can tell. Unless there is some person arguing that such a "divine revelation" was done by some empirical, measurable means. jps (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
• :{{ping|Jclemens}} YEC, presented as a scientific theory in the 21st century, is unquestionably fringe. There is nothing in the article in question presenting the subject as a theologian or a fantasy novelist or as any other type of person for whom this might plausibly considered as non-fringe; the article frames his work purely as science, and as such it is fringe. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::You keep saying that as if repeating it will make it true. It's a theological stance, derived from a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, trying to present itself as science. It's not; it's religion. Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• :::Where in our article do you find any hint that this is religious in nature? And in what sense does having a "theological stance" but "trying to present itself as science" make it anything other than fringe? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• ::::Um. Why except for a literal reading of Genesis would anyone look at the world and say "Man, this looks like six days of divine creation six thousand-ish years ago"? Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Louisiana, Michigan, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
• Delete There just isn't enough to go on here. He wrote one book, Starlight and Time, which did not get sufficient recognition in reliable sources to count as notable by itself. (The CEN Technical Journal cited now is just the old name of the Journal of Creation, i.e., not reliable.) Everything else is even less substantial. I can't see a pass of WP:AUTHOR or any other relevant standard. XOR'easter (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2024 (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.