Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Martenson

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. Sandstein 21:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Martenson (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)

Non-notable individual per WP:GNG. Handful of citations from the 90s and no scientific contributions whatsoever since make him fail NPROF too. He's now a conspiracy theorist, apparently, and I could find no SIGCOV about him. Sources listed are unreliable or straight up written by him. No article covers him exclusively nor substantiates his notability. I found no reviews of his book beyond known conspiracy sites, so he's non-notable per WP:AUTHOR as well. PK650 (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he recently made some videos about the 2019-nCoV outbreak in China he is now suddenly a "apparently a conspiracy theorist" (which is unsourced) and some random PhD in pathology (which is sourced^[1][2]), who did not write any scientific contributions (cough^[3])? For the record pathologists study diseases and their causes, so you may consider him to be an expert on the subject. Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some other sources.^[1][2][3] Someone Not Awful (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing shows the level of impact needed to show an academic is notable or the level of coverage needed to show a writer is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no notability established. 1Veertje (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2020 (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.