Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoine Priore

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, but leaning towards keep as notable hoaxes are legitimate topics, and there is evidence to suggest that he is notable in that regard. If no-one can be found to add the other side of the story to the article, it may be worth considering stubbing it until someone finds time to write a neutral version. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antoine Priore

NN-psuedoscientist with badly sourced results delete DesertSky85451 04:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find anything to assert his notability Mozzie 05:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Funded by the French government, published by the French Academy and subject of several books and articles. Seems to satisfy notability criteria. Article provides sources. Can't see the problem with it. -- Necrothesp 10:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. A read of [1] - the third referenced (but unquoted) reference in the article - describes the experiments. They have all the hallmarks of a hoax. If not deleted, this needs a serious cleanup under WP:NPOV as the Priore doubter views are not referenced QuiteUnusual 20:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Needs much cleanup, including a section on criticism regarding alleged hoaxes. -Amatulic 20:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A book about him, "Dossier Priore," is the #7 best selling book on French Amazon.com per[2]. This establishes notability, as does funding by the French government. It is outside the jurisdiction of those voting here to determine the scientific truth of his claims, since we are not the editorial board of a peer review scientific journal and no one here has credentials for determining scientific truth which are verifiable by the others. Whether it is pseudoscience is an open question. But notable technological experimentation is still notable. A criticism section, or even better citations to reliable and verifiable criticsms is absuolutely needed. I sincerely doubt the claimed 100% cure rate for all types of cancer. Edison 22:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Funding by the French government does not establish notability in itself. The nursery school in my village gets government funding, but that hardly makes it notable. Governments fund thousands and thousands of projects, some tiny and insignificant, others important and notable. QuiteUnusual 21:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    • There is no bestselling book about the nursery school in your village. Hektor 14:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - very famous scientific hoax in France, on par with the "sniffing planes affair", one of the scientific scandals of the end of the Pompidou era. Lots of articles in magazines such as Science & Vie, and a book about it. A hoax indeed, but absolutely notable. Hektor 13:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure hoakum. Glendoremus 06:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Surely whether his ideas were "hoakum" or not is irrelevant - what is relevant is whether he and they are known. The sources would tend to suggest that they are, ergo he deserves an article. It is not Wikipedia's place to judge his ideas, merely to provide information about them. -- Necrothesp 10:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

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.