Wikipedia is rarely a “reasonably good indication” of anything. Most of its authors are amateurs and dilettantes, writing about subjects in which they have zero academic training.
In any case, I have no objection to citing Ward and Brownlee or Gonzalez and Richards as current modern exponents of fine-tuning in place of Denton. The book of Gonzalez and Richards, however, is now quite old, compared to the six-book sequence recently published by Denton, and I expect that soon, if not already, Denton’s work will be just as familiar as theirs.
The caviling pedantry here over the phrase “Denton-type arguments”, when I’ve already made crystal-clear what I meant by the phrase is, unfortunately, typical of the conversational behavior of many on this site. The Pavlovian reaction here to the name “Denton” seem to indicate some deep-set insecurity regarding the man. Perhaps the fact that he has more accomplishment in actual research science than almost anyone here who has criticized him has something to do with this. Be that as it may, I ask the cavilers over phrases to read the title above, and get back on topic. Pretty please.