Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revaz Dogonadze

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 keep. Flower party■ 00:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revaz Dogonadze[edit]

Delete. Primary contributor has a history of contributing suspect data to Wikipedia... Folajimi 05:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sufficiently notable. Royboy crashfan 05:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up and/or verify as necessary. "The article content is suspect" is not a valid criterion for AFD. Microtonal 05:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I challenge you to defend "Quantum Biophysics" a legitmate field of science. Folajimi 05:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before you respond, I would encourage you to check the logs; time window should be about a year or so ago, give or take a month... Folajimi 05:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the article said at some undetermined point in the past is not particularly relevant. I'm certainly not going to waste my time trying to hunt down a particular edit or editor to which you object. As the article stands now, there are no references to anything called "quantum biophysics". And even if there were, you disagreeing with the content of the article is not a legitimate reason to nominate it for deletion. Please read the deletion policy. Microtonal 05:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he's notable per the college professor test. I note that Marcus references him twice in his Nobel Lecture of 1992 [1]. Agree that the reason put forth for deletion should be based on established deletion policy. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 05:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We've had a battle in the past about this issue, and the article does need watching, but that is no reason to delete it. Noisy | Talk 09:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, lots of google hits... but most of the sources are not what I would consider to be reliable, 3rd party reporting. There appears to be a strong element of WP:OR here. No opinion on inclusion, but if this is kept (and it would appear that is where consensus is headed) it needs a verifibility tag.--Isotope23 17:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering that the WP:BIO rule set includes an item known as "the professor test" (which I was unaware of prior to tagging this article), it seems that the AfD is rendered ineffective. As such, I concede on this matter. Folajimi 23:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Staxringold 23:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Quantum Biophysics is very important field. I inform you about some important publications in this field: 1. Pullman B., Quantum biophysics, Acta Biochim.Biophys.Acad.Sci.Hung., 12 (2), 149-162, 1977; 2. Kmiya S., Yamamoto S., Quantum biophysics of vision; Statistical estimation of the threshold number of quanta, Jpn.J.Physiol., 3 (3), 238-248, 1953; 3. Masao Kotani, On the Electronic State of Iron in Hemoglobins with a short Introduction to Problems of Quantum Biophysics, Rev.Mod.Phys., 35, 717-720, 1963; 4. Nelson W.C., Quantum Biophysics, Academy Press Rio Rancho, NM, USA, 1992. Prof. Dr. Zurab D. Urushadze, 8 March 2006

Do-over time[edit]

First, things first. My apologies to all who have responded so far; I should have done a better job of explaining my case. As Noisy has suggested, I had discovered historical data which led me to use the AfD tag. For the archived information on this subject, please visit the following addresses:

There is more I would like to say on the subject, but that will have to wait until I am centered again... Folajimi 16:05, 7 March 2006 (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.