Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth J. Dillon

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate was Delete at request of author. I will however be polite and userfy it. kingboyk 22:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth J. Dillon

[edit]

This was speedied with the notation "nn bio by user KennethJDillon". If any of this this true no way is it a speedy -- the article at least claims that he's written five books - seems true enough, he's on Amazon, although "Scientia Press" might be in his mom's basement. The other claims seem a bit over the top... but he is (apparently) president of Spectrum Bioscience Inc. (whatever that is), he was a intellgence analyst did write some paper about that al Queda guy. I dunno, is he notable? I can't really tell, and I'm not gonna vote, I'm just switching this from speedy to AfD. 453 Goggle hits on "Kenneth J. Dillon" Herostratus 03:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep per above, but needs better citations. Also, exactly why is a history Ph.D duing all this science related stuff? That and the summary makes me have a slight feeling of this being cranky self-promotion. JoshuaZ 03:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC) Is a self promoting crank. Delete per Fan1967, and we may want to look into taking that section out of the 2001 anthrax article. JoshuaZ 03:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was just looking through the history on that article to see if I could find any source other than anonymous IP. Haven't found the original source yet. It also shows very recent edits. Fan1967 03:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The recent edit of his section there came from IP 151.200.12.109. The contrib history from that IP (Contribs) sure looks like him, as it includes: an update on the Al Qaeda guy, Abderraouf Jdey to add Dillon's name; an update to Photoluminescence to add Biophotonics, with an extrenal link that resolves to Spectrum Bioscience; and, finally, an update to Radioactive waste to include his disposal plans, complete with external links to, you guessed it, Scientia Press. Fan1967 04:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, they should probaly get edited out also then. JoshuaZ 04:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Everything looks wrong on this guy. It appears he is Scientia Press, or is at least its only author. All the external links in the article point to Scientia Press' web site. He identified an Al Qaeda operative as responsible for the anthrax mailings, but I can't find any claim of this that doesn't trace back to Dillon or Scientia Press. The FBI posting for the guy makes no mention of the anthrax episode at all, nor can I find any mainstream news organizations reporting the claim. Dillon has a PhD in history, but claims to have made major medical breakthroughs in areas of, uh, alternative treatments like "Biophotonic Therapy". His book, "Close to Nature Medecine," has an Amazon rank of #2,146,676. He's developed a cognitive cure for depression. Oh, and apparently he can solve our nuclear waste disposal problems. How do we know these things are true? Why, because he told us so himself. Either this guy deserves the Nobel prize in everything, or he's a total crackpot. Fan1967 03:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan1967 Eivind 03:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Man of considerable creative talents but limited notability. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whether he's a crank or not, whether he publishes a pile of vanity books, there's still sufficient evidence of notability. [2] Monicasdude 04:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see. One the one hand, the AIDS book review journal (which you cited), which is compiled by a general librarian and is not peer-reviewed, recommends Dillon's self-published book as "A recommended book for medical libraries for its historical content and possible basis for future research." On the other hand, the library at the major research institution/teaching hospital I work at doesn't have either of his books on healing, Dillon is not published in the peer-reviewed medical literature, and his only exposure in the mainstream press is three letters to the editor. Does notability outweigh verifiability? Thatcher131 05:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't look like it. The website lists three books, all by him. It also lists Scientia Press' contact address as "c/o Kenneth J. Dillon" at an address that appears to be his apartment. Fan1967 04:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, crackpots are allowed. See David Icke who says Queen Elizabeth and Kris Kristofferson are alien shapeshifting reptiles. The problem is this guy's a not very notable crackpot. There's precious little indication that anyone pays any attention to him. Fan1967 06:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If somone writes WP:CRACKPOT I'm sure we can take notable crackpots into account. Thatcher131 17:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, excellent argument by Fan1967. To summarize as above: (1) He is Scientia, (2) All his notability is based on Scientia as the source (3) He is president of C4AT where a whack of the Ghits come from and (4) Please do not irradiate your blood as I'm on call tonight -- Samir ∙ T C 10:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm Kenneth J. Dillon. Six comments.
    1. Slow down.
    2. Consider that you may be dealing with something you have never encountered before. Historian turns scientist? Doing scientific detective work is right up my alley. Get used to it.
    3. Many of the responses are relying on indicators that may not be as useful in this case as in others--e.g., self-publishing, which I assure you works a lot better than trying to get really novel ideas past editorial gatekeepers. Eventually, I hope to turn Scientia Press into a normal science publishing house, with books by many authors, and spin it off. If prestige conveys credibility, then the fact that one of my books was published by Smithsonian Institution Press is relevant.
    4. The Wikipedia article does not make a claim of "major medical breakthroughs", nor does it claim that my cognitive therapy of depression is a cure.
    5. It would not be reasonable to expect you to read much of what I have written, but you might find at least the article identifying the likely Anthrax Mailer[3] worth reading. The evidence cited there suggests that FBI takes it dead seriously. It very much looks that, more likely than not, Abderraouf Jdey was indeed the Mailer. And my credentials for being the kind of person who could identify the Mailer in this manner are impeccable.
    6. Read several of my items. You will see that I'm not a "total crackpot", and that what I have been working on is not unimportant.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KennethJDillon (talk • contribs)

I formated your comment a little, I hope you don't mind. No one is citing your theories' validity as a reason for deletion. If you can cite mentions of your work or yourself in primary or secondary sources your biography would be worth including. Until it does meet WP:BIO however, it does not belong. Even if you had cured cancer we would not include your biography until it was verifiable and published in reliable sources. This deletion is not an attack on your character or your importance, just that a biography on you should not be included in an encyclopedia. kotepho 12:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding Kotepho. Wikipedia's goal is verifiability. One of the consequences of this is that autobiography is discouraged, per WP:AUTO, as inherently unverifiable. As noted above, you do not seem to have been covered in any of the traditional media sources that would tend to show you had achieved notariety. Regarding your sepecific claims, they can be included in the appropriate articles, provided they are verifiable. Thatcher131 12:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To bring up a specific issue on the verifiability, the article suggests that the FBI takes these theories on the anthrax mailings seriously. Can you offer any external source (like the FBI themselves) to confirm this? Everything I can see seems to indicate that you have self-published many interesting things, which very few people seem to pay any attention to. Fan1967 16:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable eccentric, for reasons stated above, unless it can be shown that the FBI takes seriously his identification of the anthrax operative. I know a bit about linguistics, not a great deal, but enough to say that I've gone to the trouble of reading his article on the Latin language and it's pure garbage. Mustafa Bevi 12:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider that you may be dealing with something you have never encountered before Actually we have, generally several times a week, which is why we have WP:VAIN, WP:BIO, and WP:Verifiability as policies and guidelines. Self-published self-promoters -- with earnest arguments as to why they're somehow different from all the others -- are a dime a dozen around here. Sorry, you're not special: delete per Fan1967. --Calton | Talk 15:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fan1967.--Isotope23 17:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per excellent arguments above by Fan1967, Kotepho, and Thatcher. Slowmover 19:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)'[reply]
  • Comment FBI has been badly burned by the Hatfill case, so it is understandably reluctant to identify a suspect in the anthrax mailings unless it has actually apprehended him and obtained a confession or rock-solid confirmation. Not likely with Jdey. However, there is quite a bit of evidence, cited in my Mailer article, that FBI takes him very seriously. As I note, evidence and logic suggest that, more likely than not, he was indeed the Mailer. As for my article on "The Trojan Origin of Roman Civilization", you would do well to read it yourselves rather than to accept someone's dismissive opinion. But I certainly understand what you are talking about in terms of verifiability. It is undoubtedly true that my work has not been covered in the traditional media. According to that criterion, my bio article does not belong in Wikipedia. So I will delete the article myself. Best wishes. Kenneth J. Dillon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KennethJDillon (talk • contribs) .
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kenneth_J._Dillon&oldid=1145546108"