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--Tone 15:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ed Conrad[edit]

Ed Conrad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Complete lack of reliable sources, especially of the caliber that are generally required for a biography of a living person. The vast majority of cites are to Usenet posts, or to the subject's own website. A few others are to blogs and self-published websites, none of which are generally considered reliable sources. There is also original research, like the statement that Conrad claims to have appeared on Larry King Live followed by a Google search of CNN.com which shows no hits. There is no evidence that this person is at all notable in the real world, as opposed to the self-contained world of Usenet. In the past, we've deleted articles like Willy on Wheels, Slashdot subculture, and Gay Nigger Association of America for being too self-referential and lacking any reliable sources. This article should be removed for the same reason. *** Crotalus *** 23:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete non-notable internet bickering. BJ^Talk 23:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I was going to point out that M. Conrad garners a one sentence mention in ISBN 0595400442 … until I read that book's bibliography, which says, right at the top, that it uses Wikipedia extensively as a source. There are no other books mentioning this person. Nor are there any journal articles.

  As for the WWW: Of the 88 actual web pages that Google Web turns up, some are entries in directories of either "wacky websites" or "criticism of Darwinism websites", the overwhelming majority are pseudonymous discussion fora postings, exactly four are the very (and only) four independent sources cited in this article, none of which actually document M. Conrad xyrself (only xyr arguments), and the remainder … turn out to have been written by M. Conrad xyrself.

  The hypothesis is only documented in its rebuttal, with no evidence that it qualifies as anything other than original research that the rest of the world does not acknowledge, and the person is not reliably documented at all. Uncle G (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources, unverifiable --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Uncle G's comment is persuasive. —Encephalon 13:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. per nom. and per Uncle G. No legitimate notability, no decent references. Tim Ross·^talk 16:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, per Uncle G. There is a serious deficiency in both reliable sources and notability. Superm401 - Talk 02:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[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.