Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buford Ray Conley

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. ✗plicit 03:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buford Ray Conley

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources seem to be WP:RS that are actually about the subject, apart from a short piece in the local paper's college yearbook issue when he graduated high school. There are several red flags for crankery (e.g. publication in Medical Hypotheses). Guy (help! - typo?) 15:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage found for this person, reads like a resume. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Kentucky. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Science, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are five citations in the article to peer reviewed scientific articles published by Buford Ray Conley in multiple scientific publication sources. Moreover, his Google Scholar link indicates many citations of his research. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=86CoBI8AAAAJ&hl=en

The publications Medical Hypotheses were mentioned as a red flag for crankery. The journal, Medical Hypothesis, has a 2020 impact factor of 1.538 (see "Medical Hypotheses". 2020 Journal Citation Reports. Web of Science(Science ed.). Thomson Reuters. 2021.), so it is not a crankery source. Moreover, the specific articles authored by Conley et al. have been cited by numerous other researchers since publication. The evidence of multiple citations by other scientists further discounts the red flag for crankery. Truthlogicreason (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Information on Notability

I'd like to present additional information that could establish the notability of Buford Ray Conley, thereby addressing some of the concerns raised here. A review of his [Google Scholar profile](https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=86CoBI8AAAAJ&hl=en) reveals publications in the fields of molecular gas dynamics and medicine. These works have been cited multiple times, indicating a level of academic recognition and a H score of 4.

1. "A general theory of evolution based on energy efficiency: its implications for diseases" has been cited 23 times. 2. "Utilization of ambient gas as a propellant for low earth orbit electric propulsion" has been cited 12 times. 3. "Experimental determination of performance parameters for a polybutadiene/oxygen hybrid rocket" has been cited 11 times.

These citations could serve as a measure of the impact of his work, which might help establish notability as per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The publications also serve as additional reliable sources that are actually about the subject.

I propose that the article be updated with this information to provide a more comprehensive view of Buford Ray Conley's contributions and notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthlogicreason (talk • contribs) 02:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be focused on the scientific notability, particularly the significance of the advancement of Child's Law, rocket propulsion, and the medical research on disease. Those areas of scientific contribution have extensive evidence of references. I deleted the article reference to his high school award because it made the article read more like a biography, which is why the article was likely proposed for deletion. Keeping the article focused on the scientific notability maintains the integrity of the article, despite the well intended contributions by others who researched this person's biographical background. Wassermanschultz (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an additional section to the article discussing the significance of the scientist's work.

=== Comment on Notability ===

I believe the article on Buford Ray Conley should not be deleted due to its significant contributions to the field of plasma physics. One of the notable elements is Buford Ray Conley's generalization of Child's Law, which is a fundamental concept in the study of space-charge effects. This generalization has been cited in academic literature and has implications for ion rocket propulsion. Here is a reference to the equation he created for Child's Law on the article regarding Space charge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_charge and the specific equation: https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/8cc4dd8512c6199da7b3a3922465145cc7fb846b What is particularly notable is that this equation derived by Conley in 1995 improved on Child's Law, which had been used since 1911. In a field like physics, when a scientist improves on an equation that had been considered a "Law" such a contribution to knowledge is very notable. Caring for all Karen (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: resume style promo BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. This issue is WP:SIGCOV, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 23:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see a path to meeting WP:N. The bulk of the article is sourced only to the subject's own work, and the rest is a CV. —siro χ o 03:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[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.