Deletion of Eric Lerner

Comment: or at the very least move most of the content into The Big Bang Never Happened (the book easily passes the notability Wikipedia:Notability_%28books%29#Criteria|criteria for books by being the subject of multiple reviews). Lerner wrote what is probably the single most well known book arguing against one of the more famous scientific theories in human history - I think that combined with the coverage in secondary sources makes him notable. Yes, I know, most people in the field do not respect the book and it is considered dated, but it created a significant splash at the time. Part of the additional criteria at  is "the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Even works in a given field which are generally believed to be ''wrong'', but which had enough impact to be discussed, are a contribution and are "part of the enduring historical record" whether we like it or not. I would note that Lerner's current political activities on behalf of immigrants have also been covered in multiple independent sources (more sources than those that were listed in the article in past versions per a Nexis search). ScienceApologist http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Lerner&diff=202242715&oldid=202209291 deleted the political activities section because other editors, including myself, thought it a violation of  to include a mention of Lerner's involvement with a Lyndon LaRouche group. Lerner's involvement with the http://www.nj-civilrights.org/ NJ Civil Rights Defense Committee adds to this individual's notability, but I don't think we'll be able to mention that since ScienceApologist does not want it in the article. I strongly encourage the closing admin to investigate ScienceApologist's massive |conflict of interest with this article when evaluating the various arguments. SA was in an on-Wiki dispute with the real-life Eric Lerner which went to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience|arbitration. SA also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Lerner&diff=200118091&oldid=200113161 added inaccurate and defamatory information about Lerner into the article without bothering to do enough homework to learn that the information was questionable. ScienceApologist strongly disagrees with Lerner's scientific ideas and personally I think he has no business editing this article at all given his past conflict with Lerner on Wikipedia. Under the circumstances, it's extremely difficult for me to assume good faith with respect to this AfD nomination, but aside from that I feel Lerner passes the notability guidelines at 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:UNDUE||WP:COI||WP:BIO)

Comment: to an article about the book, and trim biographical information to the bare minimum (per BLP).  Fails all  criteria, and the book is clearly more notable than he is.  (As an aside, the book being notable does '''not''' imply the author is notable, per BLP1E.  If he had written more than one notable book, that might be different.)  And, if the book is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community (or such of it as has commented on the book), it's not a BLP violation to say so.   &mdash
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: with relevant content being merged to The Big Bang Never Happened. #TEMP|Notability is not temporary indicates that the article on the book should probably be retained. Lerner himself, however, appears to be notable pretty much solely for writing on a topic roundly ignored by the scientific community. Explaining this notoriety in TBBNH should suffice
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: or repurpose as an article on the notable book.  Lerner is not a notable academic, and we should not have articles that go to great lengths to describe how much of a kook someone is.  Independent coverage is almost exclusively about the book. I'd call this a  case, basically
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Passes most of the  criteria, for whatever that's worth, noting that it is not relevant whether other PROFs regard him as a kook, only that they have discussed him at great length, as demonstrated by the article's sources. I will echo the above suspicions that this AFD merely attempts to weasel out of an ongoing edit war. That's not how we solve content disputes on Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)