Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert B. Strecker

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 redirect to Discredited HIV/AIDS origins theories. – bradv🍁 15:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert B. Strecker

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable academic. Doesn't meet WP:Academic Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nomination concentrates on WP:ACADEMIC, which probably fails, where the angle is more WP:FRINGE in my opinion. I believe there was already a redlink prior to creation of this article. Existing article sources may not be sufficient to establish notability, as not fully embellished by a somewhat prolific stub bio. creator who goes I'm not really going to do legwork but have done some article boilerplating. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC) I further note nom. is an NPP reviewer (whose work is really essential) and likely raised AfD when operating in that role. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark, Thanks for acknowledging the efforts. Means everything for this otherwise thankless hours of work! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable WP:FRINGE researcher; for such people, we cannot produce a properly neutral article without in-depth mainstream coverage of their work. I don't even think there's currently enough here to support the current name-drop at Discredited HIV/AIDS origins theories nor a redirect there. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment I see this quote "One of the most influential conspiracy theorists, judging by the mail his ideas have generated, is Strecker." [1] so he may have been somewhat relevant at the time. But there is not much to go on, I agree. --hroest 21:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Discredited HIV/AIDS origins theories, or delete. Redirects are cheap, and the WP:FRINGE stuff seems to have gotten some limited attention for a period of time as a fringe/conspiracy theory; he's covered somewhat prominently in this [2] overview on JSTOR of such theories. I'm not seeing enough GNG coverage for a standalone article; certainly no sign of WP:NPROF. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep or Redirect, he seems to be an important enough figure in the controversy at the time that an article would be merited. Russ has even found a academic treatment of his influence, due to the event happening in pre-internet times there is logically little coverage that is easy to find. --hroest 01:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect. Important figure in a well known controversy in the history of HIV/AIDS research. It's a discredited theory, but it had an important impact on public perception of the disease.4meter4 (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2021 (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.