Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Elvidge

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. J04n(talk page) 00:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Elvidge[edit]

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

WP:SPAM/WP:PROMO - Page heavily edited by banned spammer WP:RS - Lacks reliable sources WP:GNG - Lacks notability PeterWesco (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:AUTHOR, and WP:GNG more generally. I see maybe one reliable source discussing this individual. One point of clarification: the editor in question has been indef-blocked for promotion, but as far as I can tell has not been formally banned. Therefore his contributions are not subject to a revert-on-sight policy. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the updated page Jim_Elvidge, I added many more references that confirms the notability of Jim Elvidge. (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, US Patent Office, etc.) GuillermoAyala (talk) 2:22, 30 April 2013 (CST)

Regarding "Page heavily edited by banned spammer" I don't know who are you talking about, I am not a banned spammer, Jim_Elvidge Page is my first crontribution to Wikipedia. GuillermoAyala (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2013 (CST)

I was referring to Voidz. PeterWesco (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I heard Jim Elvidge on Coast to Coast AM years ago and his ideas blew me away. He has been on many other talk radio shows also. His book seems to be pretty popular among people who like different views on science and philosophy. He has many articles on his website and his blogs are really interesting too. He deserves a Wikipedia page for his unique theories of reality. Lewisfred78 (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPA LewisFred78 appears to be an SPA used to link to Jim Elvidge's site dating back to 2008 here: 1 2 3 PeterWesco (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not here to promote people. Voidz is here to promote. Spam by Voidz has no place here. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing at this place Voidz spamming practices or his/her Moral qualities, we are discussing Jim_Elvidge Page and it was not created by Voidz. GuillermoAyala (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2013 (CST)

I created the page Jim_Elvidge, I have no idea why Voidz edited it. GuillermoAyala (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2013 (CST)

I consider that a person who holds 4 patents, has a published paper by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and has a published book with a great following is notable enough to have his Wikipedia Page. GuillermoAyala (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2013 (CST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.248.190 (talk)

Comment: I think this really boils down to NOTE, I suggest ignoring other potential problems. So let's look at some issues there...

I do not consider patents, alone, to be NOTEworthy, especially when one considers this. If the person in question had the most patents, or the newest, or something else notable, then that would be notable. But in this case it's simply "has patents" and no assertion is being made that those patents are in any way notable, or make this person notable. So, those are out, IMHO.

So then we move onto the IEEE article. Again, I can't see this as evidence for NOTE - is he the first person to publish an IEEE article? The last? The most frequent? None of those appear to be the case, and again, the article doesn't seem to claim that this publication is evidence of NOTEworthness.

And that brings us, finally, to theuniversesolved, and the various links that are basically discussions of it. If there's going to be NOTE then this appears to be the only evidence for it. So, to the author, can you show us how this book is NOTEworthy? Perhaps it is a best seller? Widely quoted? Etc?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maury puts it quite well. Patents are not indicators of notability (honestly they're meaningless even in the patent field unless you can successfully defend against infringement). An article and a book likewise don't help things; they aren't independent coverage for the purposes of WP:GNG, nor do they meet WP:NPROF. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:16, 3 May 2013 (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.