Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Home 2011 (Scientific research project)

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 was Delete. Hut 8.5 16:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project Home 2011 (Scientific research project)[edit]

Project Home 2011 (Scientific research project) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be an elaborate hoax. External web pages point to a tripod site, a Hartford Courant wedding announcement that has nothing to do with this alleged project, and I can't find much proof that "Envirotech E.A. LTD" exists from ghits other than links that seem to be involved with the hoax. Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This project is no hoax. Interesting opinion, but there are colleges, news organizations, and honor societies that verify the work done at that project. The company Envirotech is out of Australia. It no longer exists after the science research ended January 1, 2011 when the funding ran out. The project ran for 32 years, it is no hoax, believe it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.97.31 (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC) — 72.221.97.31 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Which colleges? Which news organizations? Which honor societies? If Envirotech had a web site, it'd be archived at the Internet Archive, can you provide a link? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that above IP edited the same files that the author of the above article did, so it's almost certainly the same user. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the article, but I am not affiliated with the project. I became interested in it as a highlight of Connecticut when I saw them demonstrate their technology on TV. I am interested in Connecticut history. Project Home 2011 is well known in the Northeast. The COI tag is not true, and the information in the article is completely true, so the other tag is very innapropriate. There should be a tag requesting more sources to be contributed as people find them. The colleges concur with the project, and the project is mentioned in print in the Who's Who 2009 volume, which I reserched to get that information. That alone proves the legitamacy of the project. Mikebeckbeck (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note Tags {{orphan}} and {{local}} were added to this article as they apply based on this discussion. They were removed by other users who have their own tags.Kimbookworm (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC) (Truthfulness verified, could use additional links to clear up some confusion. Project was a big event mainly local to the Northeast U.S. area.) Kimbookworm (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as complete junk. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as elaborate hoax. There is no such Australian company as "Envirotech E.A. LTD", and if there was, it wouldn't "select two twelve-year-old students ... to study the physics of relativity." -- 202.124.72.213 (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It just so happens that there was an Envirotech E.A. LTD company in Australia, and they did indeed select the two genius level kids in 1979 for the project. Decisions should be based on facts, not personal speculation. My research for the article was extensive and I found records from the department of education for the project where it started out as a science project for gifted kids at first, but after a few years, as the selected kids who attended voluntarily after school, began coming up with some interesting concepts and engineering designs, the company in Australia organized a fully funded research project supported by investors. Records of the existance of this company are at Springfield College in Massachusetts where they wire transferred $15,000 for the two students' educations, and at Social Security Administration, where the company was getting information for one of the student's foster family. Based on the facts, that this information is true and verifiable at said sources and sources given in the article, and that this project has signifficance in society, it belongs. Mikebeckbeck (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Australian Securities & Investments Commission, there was no Envirotech E.A. LTD. But feel free to show us an Australian web site or Australian address for this alleged Australian company. In fact, there seems to be no WP:RS supporting anything in this article. -- 202.124.75.11 (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs condensing I heard of Project Home 2011. They designed some robots that can hover above the ground while studying the nature of quantum particles. They did come up with equations for ion barriers, and did a demonstration on 1/1/2011 when it ended. I was able to find out from Springfield College that there was a company called Envirotech E.A. LTD that paid for courses for the two research colleagues in the article in 2001, and they gave me a lead to follow where I found proof of the existance of the company and the project, at a Notary Republic in downtown Springfield Mass, that has a legal record of a Jackie James from a company called Envirotech E.A. LTD based in Australia, notarizing documents on behalf of John and Matt Mitch, in 2002. Therefore the project is proven to not be a hoax, and that truthfulness tag should be removed. The content of the article should be condensed. -Kimbookworm 38.126.110.7 (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC) — 38.126.110.7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment. This is all very amusing, and I got a good laugh out of "Matt's and John's polybit processor ... treats the entire memory as one byte made up of trillions of bits instead of trillions of bytes made up of 8 bits each. The result is that their polybit processor invention can execute an entire program in one step." But seriously, why wasn't this article speedied? -- 202.124.75.11 (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI think it is describing a computer that can run all the lines of a program at the same time instead of one at a time. I can understand it. It just sounds like a different way of allocating memory. There is nothing hard to believe about that. All the more reason to invite more sources about it. I agree there isn't too much in the references about their computer. The TV appearances were more focused on the maglev technology. I think it should be noted that more information about the computer is needed, or perhaps delete the section about the computer as long as the references about that aspect of the project is lacking. The existing references and what they substantiate do check out. Their press release does mention the computer. -Kimbookworm 38.126.110.7 (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No independent sources; the link to the Hartford Courant is in fact a wedding announcement for one of the principals, who put the name of this "project" into the announcement. Even presupposing it isn't a very elaborate hoax, there's an obvious failure of WP:GNG; the world has not heard of this "project."

    As to the article being speedied, it already had been, back in January, when the creator of the current version attempted to put it up.

    Turning to the SPA above who refers to a Springfield "Notary Republic," you're in luck, because I'm a notary public who was myself certified in Springfield, MA. You wouldn't mind telling us why officers of an Australian company would be in Springfield getting their documents notarized, or how it happened that this notary would have kept records of people for whom he did not actually notarize documents, back before notaries in Massachusetts were required to keep logs? Come to that, would you let us know which notary was the one to whom you spoke, so I can ask him or her myself? I don't mind. Ravenswing 15:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but with revision ongoing: If you are a notary in the Springfield area, you could easily verify that information. The other user did say the notary republic she found that information was in downtown Springfield and gave the year to look up in the log. This project existed, that is for certain and they have invented technology. It has enough to remain included, but can be built on as more information is found. When I contributed a proposed article on this work in January, the reason for deletion was because it was not researched well enough and did not have enough sources. I was told to do more work finding more information on the project and re-submit it. I did. I have also contributed other interesting facts about Connecticut. I did verify the credentials of the project with Asnuntuck College where the scientists studied and the awards they recieved. Also the tuition was paid to Asnuntuck via a trust fund from Project Home 2011. Mikebeckbeck (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: You seem to be confused as to what a notary "republic" [sic] does. The sole remit of a notary public, these days, is to notarize documents. They are not keepers of public records. That being said, Asnuntuck is a junior college, extremely unlikely to produce significant scientific research - for example, it only teaches five courses in physics, three of them introductory - or notable scientific awards. But by all means ... if you claim to have "verified the credentials" of your project with Asnuntuck, would you mind telling me with whom? I'm happy to contact the person myself. Ravenswing 17:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: I figured that a notary republic legalized documents under oath, stamped the document with an official legal seal, and recorded the registration of the document permanently. Would that be strong evidence of the existance of the organization, Envirotech, and it's administrator, Jackie James, if nothing else? The two research members grew up in Enfield, Connecticut so it would make sense that they would choose their college to be in their home town with their friends. The project was not sponsored by Asnuntuck. The project paid the college tuition of the students for whatever college they chose to go to. When I was searching libraries for the Who's Who 2009 volume to verify that Project Home 2011 was mentioned in the text along with one of the colleagues of the project, I also found that the 2 colleagues were accepted to the University of Connecticut, University of Hartford, Central Connecticut State University and University of New Haven. There are probably other Universities as well. They were accepted to these major Universities in 2010. They could be continuing their work as we speak. Mikebeckbeck (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I strongly urge you to examine some of the policies and guidelines that have been linked to this AfD. Specific criteria for retention must be met, and the bar is set a great deal higher than merely "existing." Nonetheless, you and others have stated several times now that you've "verified" this information and that with various vague people, but you've been curiously resistant so far to identify the people to whom you've spoken.

    As far as that goes, to which "Who's Who" are you referring? Given the dates involved, do you mean Who's Who Among Students in American Universities & Colleges, a quasi-self-submitting volume? That's relatively meaningless - I was in a Who's Who myself in 1977, and I assure you that the slender few lines in 6-pt type among 30,000 other "selectees" conferred no notability. Honestly, no one here is swallowing any of this. Ravenswing 19:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete on the basis of sourcing: the so-called "scientific paper" is a proposal to present a paper at a conference--not only is a conference presentation not proof of notability, but the , according to the source, the paper has not yet been accepted--or even submitted. Nothing else that possibly is a usable source at all. The arguments for keeping are all based on mere existence, which is not notability . As far as I can tell, the article is a very possible candidate for G11, entirely promotional. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While not a fringe theory exactly, the idea that someone gave two 12-year-olds perfectly good money as a decade-long subsidy to build flying robot supercomputer cyclotrons or whathaveyou, is an exceptional claim requiring exceptional sources (WP:REDFLAG) -- certainly not adduced here, Grand Army of the No-Tar Republic notwithstanding. EEng (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC) P.S. Here's a link to what might be called their research update. Apparently the real project was restoration of a Trans Am.[1][reply]
  • Keep I vote to keep this article. If any references are not good enough, then delete them, but don't delete the whole article. Many people searching for information on this work would find links to any sources other users can find and add very useful.68.229.87.140 (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC) — 68.229.87.140 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep I have heard of Project Home 2011. There are plenty of programs for gifted kids that are sponsored by philanthropists and orginizations. The info says that the project didn't turn into a full fledged research project with larger investor funding until after the 2 boys came of age and were doing collegiate level work. It was just a regular science program for above average kids when it started and the boys were 12.72.209.14.170 (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC) — 72.209.14.170 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • This article needs some neatening up, but it should be kept. If someone needs to research these works, or the backgrounds of the scientists, it can be found with helpful links to other sources, which there are many impartial sources that have acknowledged their work. Just the fact that television programs featured them is notable. by Todd68.224.201.158 (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC) — 68.224.201.158 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep This article is about a research group that contributed to science, it constitutes a mention on Wikipedia. That scientific journal was just an abstract from the print version they used for their submission to that conference/seminar. The printed scientific disertation has the equations they came up with for making an ion barrier. Their big bang theory is an interesting concept. They don't claim to have proven that, it is just based on their research into physics and relativity. That is what the project was set out to explore. After over 2 decades of working on that, engineering and machining of the parts and constructing equipment, I would expect they would be good at what they do and would end up with some kind of contribution to science. I would not call any research colleague who studies quantum physics and engineering as impossible. They were funded by investors for that long, they were obviously working on something important. The researchers were both 44 when the project completed in early 2011. They were not kids then.68.15.56.26 (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC) — 68.15.56.26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment The YouTube demonstration video has been "removed by the user." -- 202.124.74.246 (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Project Home 2011 is both notable and historic. Television programs featured the project, and the names of the members of it along with the name of the project are in print recognized in the Who's Who in American Colleges organization which is a very notable organization that has been around for nearly a century. I have done research on this project in bits and pieces over the past nine months and have found that Project Home 2011 is worthy and encyclopedic. Mikebeckbeck (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Who's Who is a scam, and fake biographies have been published in it. What's more, there is a rather obvious case of either WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT going on here, considering the unregistered IP addresses who are "voting" in favor of this article can be geotraced to the Connecticut/Rhode Island/New York area. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under G3 criteria for blatant hoax and block all WP:SOCKs. Polyamorph (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominate to keep this article I would like to add a comment here. This article couldn't be further from a 'hoax'. It was a real research project and to cry hoax is very bias personal opinion, not to mention not true. If that is the rational for suggesting deleting it, then considering this is nowhere near any kind of hoax, that justifies it as shouldn't be deleted. An article should not be deleted based on untrue opinions, that goes for any article. I am sure Wikipedia has a rule for articles not being deleted based on untrue personal speculation. I happened to have seen the project participants in this article on TV myself, and I know it is no hoax. The research project has been around for a while, also.
To offer my own input for the previous comment, Probably the reason most of the comments here are from the new england area is because that is where project home 2011 was worked on. That is also the general area the spot on public television was. I'm surprised project home 2011 wasn't anywhere on wikipedia in the first place. It does not deserve a delete nomination.
The Who's Who credential is not something anyone can make themselves. It is hard to get into. The school the student attends has to nominate them out of a small handful of the student body.The school submits the student information, and the information is verified by the school before they put their reputation on the line. The documentation in the Who's Who honor society is a reliable source of verified information. It qhalifies.
The guys that did the work in that project, John Obik and Matt Mitch U. were in the Enfield Press newspaper for Project Home 2011, around 10 years ago and were given awards at the college when they were inducted into both phi theta kappa and whos who honor societies. They are pretty well known in a positive way in the area.76.28.16.10 (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC) — 76.28.16.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: And none of you sock/meatpuppets can prove any of it, can you? You can't provide valid sources, you can't provide the names of the people you claim "verified" your information, you can't provide any information about the alleged public TV program, you can't provide any information about these alleged "awards," and so much of your allegations aren't actually credible - are you seriously claiming, for instance, that a man in his 40s would be listed in one of the student Who's Who scam mill books in 2009?

    Look, seriously, folks, I implore you. If you don't know how Wikipedia works - and whether there's just the one of you with a dynamic IP or you've gotten your friends to chime in, you've demonstrated that you don't - please check out WP:PILLAR and learn. Please understand that no knowledgeable editor is convinced by your arguments, and that there is a standard of proof for your claims you haven't even attempted to meet. Obviously you've clung to this "Project Home 2011" (and if it's a 32-year-project, why is it '2011?') out of some misguided attempt at convincing the world that you're Very Important. By all means carry on ... but you can't carry on in Wikipedia. Ravenswing 16:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm in agreement with everything Ravenswing says. In addition even if it wasn't a blatant hoax, which it is since the technology described in the article is WP:Complete Bollocks, it also fails key wikipedia policies on notability, verifiability, reliable sources, what Wikipedia is not, Original research and Conflict of interest. It's clear you have been trolling/promoting this "project" elsewhere on internet forums, but it won't be tolerated on wikipedia. Polyamorph (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a heap o' crap. -- Whpq (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a long-standing hoax, previously known on the Internet as "Project Home 2010" and other names going back a decade or so. -- 202.124.74.143 (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a number of reasons I listed in the article's talk page that identify it as a decade-old hoax. Devil Master (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for those inclined to delete (as I am)[edit]

May I suggest that those of us on the "delete" side of the debate just ignore simply not bother responding to further blather urging keep? -- unless it really points to new evidence, of course. We can use our time more profitably elsewhere, and the closing admin isn't going to be fooled, so there's no need to keep feeding these trolls by responding to their foolishness. EEng (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my original statement sounded like no one should read further input on the keep side. What I meant to suggest (now corrected above) is that there's no need to respond, unless they actually say something new. EEng (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I have to point out the following Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikebeckbeck. Polyamorph (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good, definitely overdue. Ravenswing 09:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I only asked ONE person I know to help me dig up information for my article. I did not ask anyone to join this discussion. Many people in the general area this research project was held know about it. If word got around that some people here were contesting whether that project made the achievements it made and wanted to speak out about it, was not of my direction. This is a good part of Connecticut residents who have made achievements, and the article is contributed in good faith. It ought to be included.Mikebeckbeck (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a little bias. asking to only look at your point of view and no one elses, despite the constructiveness of the input? It is supposed to be a neutral point of view. I myself and some other users have pointed out some valid points supporting the inclusion of this article. Some of them I didn't even find out. Quoting from Wikipedia's notability requirement page, this article qualifies, ""Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." The planet forward TV show link and the mention in print in the notable organization, Who's Who in American Colleges and Universities are two references that establish notability. There are more that I am sure can be added over time as users find them.

"A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article."

The other users seem to be in agreeance that this is a good article. It may need some minor adjustments, however it does relate to other wikipedia pages, such as Asnuntuck College, Who's Who honor society, Phi Theta Kappa, etc. Any leads given here are simple to follow, such as notaries or persons to speak with at the colleges given, to inquire if indeed they recall said engineering students that they were aware of were involved in a scientific research project, can be verified. I did the research and found all that information in the article. 20:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikebeckbeck (talk • contribs)

  • Comment I suggest including this article in Wikipedia but with revisions made that give a description of the project what they did and who did it, including the sources that back it up. Paragraphs that don't have sources to back it up, such as the computer they invented, although I believe it is true, should be ommitted until sources for that aspect are found. The section about the maglev device should stay, because there are reliable second party sources, such as the tv show, that specificaly note the project for that. All references, no matter how strong or weak should all stay included as they back up the information.-Kimbookworm38.126.110.7 (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Focusing on the Who's Who among students in American Universities and Colleges reference in the article, referring to this Wikilink at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who's_Who which Wiki users have approved the content of this article on the Who's Who national honor society, states that "Who's Who (or "Who is Who") is the title of a number of reference publications, generally containing concise biographical information on a particular group of people. The title is also used as an expression meaning a collection or group of noted persons; as in the sentence, "The actors in the film were a Who's Who of the great American comedians of the time".

The title "Who's Who" is in the public domain, and thousands of Who's Who compilations of varying scope and quality have been published by various authors and publishers. The oldest and best known is the annual British publication Who's Who, a reference work on contemporary prominent people"

Just the fact that not only are the people of this project acknowledged in the book as notable people, but Project Home 2011 is also noted in this honor society's print, establishes by definition on the Wikipedia page describing the Who's Who National honor society, that this science organization and it's members are notable people. The reference gives the information about the book, and it is the real Who's Who book, not one of the 'scam' versions where people's autobiographies are in them. This project is honored in the real honor society, where inclusions were provided by the state colleges, not the students themselves. It is an unrelated party acknowledging these students and this project and thus they are notable on these grounds. It required these people and this project to make an achievement and contribution to society in a notable way to be honored by the Who's Who honors organization. The members of this project have also been inducted into other well respected international honor societies, such as Phi Theta Kappa as well. Kimbookworm (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Project_Home_2011_(Scientific_research_project)&oldid=1108461151"