The result was no consensus. This has to be closed eventually, and no further progress is being made. The qualifications as a physicist have been shown to be borderline, and the discussion on that point is about which side of the dividing line it fallls, with the arguments using the same data being mainly repeated rounds of "yes he qualifies", and "no he doesn't." To the extent I can judge, the significance as a creationist has been debated similarly. I see few if any of the WP:PROF regulars have wanted to give a keep or delete, because it would be just one more opinion added to the mix. All I thought I could usefully add was one technical point, and if I were forced to choose between keep or delete, I 'm not at all sure which way by own voice would fall. Similar people have been kept or deleted about half the time each. If thought worthwhile to continue this, I'd strongly suggest waiting a few months. In the meanwhile, it would help to make the strongest article--strong in the sense of reasonable cited non-exagerated statements.
DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC) reply
I can't turn up any reliable sources establishing notability. Hartnett has apparently published some papers in peer-reviewed journals, and he is cited now and then on creationwiki and CMI, but not prominently, and neither is a reliable source for the purposes of WP:N. — Jess· Δ ♥ 21:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. This has to be closed eventually, and no further progress is being made. The qualifications as a physicist have been shown to be borderline, and the discussion on that point is about which side of the dividing line it fallls, with the arguments using the same data being mainly repeated rounds of "yes he qualifies", and "no he doesn't." To the extent I can judge, the significance as a creationist has been debated similarly. I see few if any of the WP:PROF regulars have wanted to give a keep or delete, because it would be just one more opinion added to the mix. All I thought I could usefully add was one technical point, and if I were forced to choose between keep or delete, I 'm not at all sure which way by own voice would fall. Similar people have been kept or deleted about half the time each. If thought worthwhile to continue this, I'd strongly suggest waiting a few months. In the meanwhile, it would help to make the strongest article--strong in the sense of reasonable cited non-exagerated statements.
DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC) reply
I can't turn up any reliable sources establishing notability. Hartnett has apparently published some papers in peer-reviewed journals, and he is cited now and then on creationwiki and CMI, but not prominently, and neither is a reliable source for the purposes of WP:N. — Jess· Δ ♥ 21:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC) reply