Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul LaViolette (3rd nomination)

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. A clear consensus to delete. There are also calls for SALTing, which I will also do -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul LaViolette[edit]

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

Article was deleted at its 2nd AfD The subject was unhappy about the article and had emailed an editor requesting deletion. I don't think that this article offers any more evidence of notability than the last, probably less. Dougweller (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In fact, should the most recent creator of this article, or others, really wish to make the article the best it could be facing this discussion, they should request to gain access to the deleted versions of the article to see what references can be copied from there into the current version of it. __meco (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete presumably the situation hasn't changed since the previous AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons in the previous AfD, and because this is an inadequately sourced WP:BLP. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 08:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per conclusive arguments from earlier AfDs. To summarize: His books are not widely held, nor is there significant, reliable coverage. In fact, coverage was vastly overstated. There was "George Noory's biography of LaViolette...", but this turned out to be nothing more than a few sentences of PR fluff on a radio show web page. There was also material from the subject's own Starburst Foundation (not independent). Then there was the "article" in New Scientist, which turned out to be just a trivial mention. The best that could be mustered was an article in a local alternative newspaper, the Washington City Paper. The "headlines in newspapers and magazines around the world" that were promised numerous times in those debates never materialized and still have not, as is obvious from the article's references. The account that re-created this article is clearly a WP:SPA and it's likely that this article would be re-re-created if this discussion ends in a "delete". Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I hope people understand my reasons "removing PROD; in all fairness the AfD was almost a year ago, and not a clear-cut case, so with all due respect, I think if this is to be deleted, it deserves a discussion; no problem if you wish to take it to AfD."^[1], and I am sorry if I have caused unnecessary debate; perhaps I AGF too much, but I'd rather err on the side of caution, I suppose. I thought it'd have a fair chance of WP:PROF / WP:GNG given Google News, scholar - so hopefully my rationale for de-prod wasn't too insane. Chzz ► 21:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedurally speaking, I think you did exactly the right thing. I think the comments thus far reflect the fact that folks have indeed re-assessed at this article, such as it now stands, and have still come to the same conclusion. This is perhaps best reflected by the nom. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Notability has not improved since last time. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Well, that’s Wikipedia – you can find any useless information you can imagine (did you know the shocking fact that on August 1, 2005, Palmeiro was suspended for ten days for violating Major League policy:-) but when comes to science, let us suppress all new ideas even if people are well known, published scientists.

Anyway, I still think that the article should stay. For example, a number of Paul La Violette’s cosmology theories has been confirmed but unfortunately, not acknowledged. E.g. in 1985 and later 1994, he not only predicted blueshifting of signal between two distant spacecraft, but even discussed it with the NASA. This has been confirmed years later and today known as Pioneer effect - Wikipedia still describes it as unexplained “anomaly” :-) I agree that more works should be done on the article – if it survives. Also, my account is not one time; I’ve been member for years, and I have no connection with Paul LaViolette… Radova (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Radova (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do you have a source regarding that prediction? -- Radagast 3 (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon the question Radova, but would you mind clarifying why you're editing from what appears to be a single-purpose account for the LaViolette article if you've "been member for years"? I ask because seasoned editors do not typically edit from newly-created WP:SPAs. Thanks in advance for the clarification. Agricola44 (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment There are many non-reliable sources on the internet repeating the claims re. this person and their early discoveries relating to the Pioneer effect, Blue shift, subquantum kinetics, etc. However, this all appears to stem from his own work - The Starburst Foundation, of which he is president^[2] and claims that JPL should have acknowledged his work. The following quotations are from the website "etheric.com" which is registered to LaViolette - with bold emphasis by me;

Paul LaViolette's Pioneer Effect prediction remained unrecognized in the journal literature, but his attempts to bring this prediction to the attention of the scientific community through archive posting have been met with a closed door. Nevertheless, his paper has now been accepted for journal publication and is due to come out shortly. It is disconcerting that the archive administrators would allow other physicists to post their papers prior to journal publication and at the same time block LaViolette's repeated attempts to post his paper.^[3]

I cannot find any reliable sources that support these claims. Chzz ► 03:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (barring any more convincing evidence, to give some credence to notability, in which case I will revisit this discussion) From the above, I conclude, that this subject does not meet our notability guidelines, as I unable to find sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. Considering the apparent efforts to promote the notability on non-reliable websites, and the consequent efforts to validate it on Wikipedia, I do recommend that if we can agree this matter, we should also salt the page. I'd also like to apologize to everyone here for taking time by removing the PROD. Chzz ► 03:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, it seems that I do not understand wikipedia policies. You wish to remove published scientist with plausible theory and for example, keep page dedicated to "Researcher" and "Inventor" (exact words on his page) John Searl. No publications (the guy is primary school dropout), no verification, no witnesses, no reliable sources: even his own children says that his "free-energy-anti-gravity" devices never existed. The newest documentary also shows nothing but claims. I understand that he is known for "being known" in conspiracy and new-age circles, but still... Then, there is a pages about "physicist" Bob Lazar with link to a journalist George Knapp known simply because he once reported about Bob's area 51 adventures :-) ... In brief, I believe that Dr. Paul LaViolette should have his page.

Radova (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policies are indeed quite complex. Relevant policies include WP:GNG, WP:Verifiability, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Radova's whole argument seems to be nothing more than WP:WAX. We're not debating whether all those other folks should have articles, we're only discussing LaViolette's case here. (If you don't think those other articles belong, then please prod or bring them to AfD.) I think the deal-breaker in this case has once again been demonstrated: there are no reliable, substantive, independent sources for any of the claims from/about this individual. There is only hearsay and testimonial. People, including myself, have been asking proponents to produce the claimed sources for a whole year. At this point, I think we can all safely assume that these sources simply do not exist. As near as I can tell, the only demonstrable facts are that LaViolette does indeed have a scientific background, has published some papers (listed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul LaViolette), but that there has been little uptake or notice of this work (h-index of 5). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment One day, if his theories are proven right it will be fun to remember he didn’t pass the Wikipedia Pokemon test :-)

Radova (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really; it just means that, when this makes big news, we will write an article. Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia; it gathers information about any and all subjects that have already been extensively covered elsewhere. That's what an Encyclopaedia does. We do not do any form of 'discovery', we are not pioneers, we do no original research. There are plenty of other websites which do. Chzz ► 00:17, 16 August 2010 (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.