Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Massey

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. Bearcat (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Massey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Just like the article on his brother, Keith Massey, this article was created by User:Keithamassey, so WP:Vanity; He has a few articles published, mostly in small or non-important journal. The reference notes are from the things he published. His book which claims that "THE PHAISTOS DISK [is] CRACKED!" was published by a vanity-press "Massey Electronic Publishing" and it looks like pseudoscience to me. He does not appear to be notable enough from his works to pass WP:PROF. bogdan (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These guys aren't even experts in what they claim fame for. The Skeptic comments on their work:

"The Masseys have made an effort to learn about archaic Greek, but they are clearly not experts and do not feel confident enough to invent a dialect as Fischer did. Some of their comments are rather naïve and unsophisticated; eg, they seem happy to insert w- more or less where it suits them to do so in words beginning with a vowel, on the ground that ‘Archaic Greek as presented in Linear B…insert[s] (sic!) and include[s] the consonant /w/ in places where it is not today (sic; is ‘in classical times’ intended?) present and is not expected’. Some of the other forms posited seem to be related to known Greek forms in rather arbitrary and inconsistent ways."

http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/2000/3.pdf

Non-notable pseudo-scientists! - Duribald (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Probably less notable than his brother. His religious work does not seem very significant. There would be some precedent for a combined article if the one on Keith is kept. BTW, I'm doubtful that the author of the article in the Australian Skeptic, a linguist who works with modern English, has better qualification than Keith M. DGG (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Newbrook studied classics at Oxford, apart from linguistics, and I find info on him lecturing about sanskrit and other languages, as well as historical linguistics. So he doesn't seem to specialized in modern English. But he's no specialist in ancient greek, no. - Duribald (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2008 (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.