The result was Keep. While the article may not be written optimally right now, it seems that Wells is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article under current general and specific notability guides. NW ( Talk) 18:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC) reply
According to Wikipedia's "General Notability Guidelines" WP:GNG an topic needs to have been covered in depth in secondary sources before an article is possible. This article (as of now) has 67 sources cited. However they are all primary sources. One group is Dr. Wells' own writings and websites of organizations he is affiliated with. The other is writings of people who disagree with him and are telling us why his theories are wrong. As far as I can see there is no secondary source which gives general information on him in a neutral way. As important as he may be I don't see how this article is possible under WP's stated policies and guidelines. Wolfview ( talk) 12:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. While the article may not be written optimally right now, it seems that Wells is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article under current general and specific notability guides. NW ( Talk) 18:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC) reply
According to Wikipedia's "General Notability Guidelines" WP:GNG an topic needs to have been covered in depth in secondary sources before an article is possible. This article (as of now) has 67 sources cited. However they are all primary sources. One group is Dr. Wells' own writings and websites of organizations he is affiliated with. The other is writings of people who disagree with him and are telling us why his theories are wrong. As far as I can see there is no secondary source which gives general information on him in a neutral way. As important as he may be I don't see how this article is possible under WP's stated policies and guidelines. Wolfview ( talk) 12:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC) reply