Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thad Roberts

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thad Roberts

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-promotion page for a fringe theorist with dubious credentials. There doesn't seem to be anything that justifies including this article here, other than the stealing of the Moon rocks bit. — LucasVB | Talk 02:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnotable fringe. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO & dubious notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not only plagued by fringeness, but by lots of claims that violate BLP rules. He is a person convicted of robbery who has since embraced nutty ideas, nothing here of note.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability as a criminal (needs ongoing coverage in reliable sources), academic (Google scholar shows very few citations to his work), nor as a fringe theorist (would need mainstream reliable sources to put his fringe theories into a properly neutral perspective). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2016 (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.