Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat Price
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. — FireFox 11:48, 28 May '06
- Don't wish to cause any offense to FireFox, but this pretty obviously didn't reach consensus. It was added to DR, and we have undeleted. Decision overturned. No consensus. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pat Price[edit]
This person once took part in some trials of remote viewing, a purported psychic mechanism briefly funded by the CIA (and thus claimed as CIA-developed by the conspiracy brigade). And that, as fgar as I can tell, is it. It's not even asserted that their role in this was pivotal. Just zis Guy you know? 11:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Not notable. DarthVader 11:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable cranks, I'm assuming good faith in that the ISBN reference details his importance to the otherwise cranky movement. There are at least 25 published references to him regarding the remote viewing stuff, and the top Amazon results for his name aren't vanity presses. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a bit of a POV-push going on here by proponents of remote viewing including adding {{Remote Viewing}} to a couple of senior CIA figures despite remote viewing being of only peripheral importance to their careers (if any - theree is no reliable source which says it was), some remote viewers have been deleted, Remote Viewing Timeline is up for deletion, remote viewing itself has been grossly POV in the past. There are by my reckoning a bout 3,300 relevant ghits ([1]) and I don't see any evidence of Pat Price having written any books - there is another Pat Price, active in the field of cancer research who is the likely author of treatment of cancer and of course all the Google Scholar hits on Pat Price as author. This Pat Price is mentioned in 20+ of the 1500-odd published papers on remote viewing in the Google Scholar database, but is not cited by any papers published in peer-reviewed journals as far as I could tell (chronological bias: he died in 1975). Overall, there is a notbale Pat Price, an oncologist, but this Pat Price does not appear to me to be considered significant other than by a few other devotees of remote viewing. Ingo Swann is a notable RV crank, I don't think this guy is. Just zis Guy you know? 12:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's a POV push, those things should be reverted. AfD isn't for POV issues. As for Pat Price not being notable, 25 published references - all of which are in RV-centric books - disagree with you. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a bit of a POV-push going on here by proponents of remote viewing including adding {{Remote Viewing}} to a couple of senior CIA figures despite remote viewing being of only peripheral importance to their careers (if any - theree is no reliable source which says it was), some remote viewers have been deleted, Remote Viewing Timeline is up for deletion, remote viewing itself has been grossly POV in the past. There are by my reckoning a bout 3,300 relevant ghits ([1]) and I don't see any evidence of Pat Price having written any books - there is another Pat Price, active in the field of cancer research who is the likely author of treatment of cancer and of course all the Google Scholar hits on Pat Price as author. This Pat Price is mentioned in 20+ of the 1500-odd published papers on remote viewing in the Google Scholar database, but is not cited by any papers published in peer-reviewed journals as far as I could tell (chronological bias: he died in 1975). Overall, there is a notbale Pat Price, an oncologist, but this Pat Price does not appear to me to be considered significant other than by a few other devotees of remote viewing. Ingo Swann is a notable RV crank, I don't think this guy is. Just zis Guy you know? 12:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Keep per Jeff's well-drawn research. Vizjim 12:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – per badlydrawnjeff. The article could still do with cleanup, though – Gurch 13:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleanup then move to Project SCANATE Once you remove the material that seem unverifiable, what's left seems to be about that project, not about this person. Paddles 13:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The whole thing can't be verified at all. It smells fishy to start. Dominick (TALK) 15:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge with others eventually. --Tone 16:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Project SCANATE may be real (or a "real" hoax), but there's no evidence that Pat is. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:HOLE. Stifle (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? What are the chances you know anyone in the RV movement? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Ezeu 20:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ezeu 20:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Found project Stargate mentioned in a (to me) reliable source, and Pat Price mentioned here, but cannot find reliable source that Price was actually a significant figure there. If he was, and it can be verified, then he would be notable. Crum375 21:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading this pdf which is linked in my previous link, the name of the 'remote viewer' is blotted out and coded. So unless someone reliably knows the code I don't think it's useful. Crum375 21:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn whackjob. Transwiki to Loonipedia. -- GWO
- 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.