Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 19

19 November 2014

Boyd Bushman – Endorsed. This discussion is a microcosm of why we need to stick rigedly to reliable independant secondary sourcing rather then trying to draw conclusions ourselves from primary material. Consensus here is clear. The sources adduced don't stack up and the deletion therefore was policy based and reasonable. I note that there was no discussion with the deleting admin prior to the DRV. In these circumstances it seems rather harsh to complain about the lack of a closing rationale, especially as one was provided quite quickly after the deleting admin was made aware of the dissent. – Spartaz Humbug! 07:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Boyd Bushman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Boyd Bushman was a well known person, and was cited in books and documentaries (see the deleted page). There currently is a war going on to silence any information about him. Nobodyimportant123 (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC) overturn to Restore Bushman was an actual person interviewed in books and documentaries! Why is he being silenced?? Restoring or recreating his page is the straightforward and obvious solution! Anything otherwise is censorship! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.246.5 (talk • contribs) overturn to NC I'd like to see the original article, but there were sources provided (though not great) and a numeric consensus to keep. It's possible there were a lot of SPAs here (though looking I don't think there were more than 1 or 2). And perhaps WP:EVENT arguments should carry the day. But the arguments didn't find consensus (IMO) and the closer didn't give us a clue why he deleted. IMO, there isn't consensus either way, so NC it is baring a clear explanation as to why deletion is the right outcome. Hobit (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Temp undeleted. —Cryptic 05:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC) A somewhat reluctant endorse. I have to be blunt. I don't like the way this was closed. It was a contentious debate. It had a lot of participants. They were owed reasoning for the outcome. Yet there was no reasoning given by the closer, and the closer's contribs timing suggests the lack of reasoning reflects no more than two minutes worth of thought ([1] [2]). I usually !vote to overturn these closures as a matter of principle and ask that they be re-closed. Closing rationales are important (a) as a matter of respect to a debate's participants, and (b) to explain the reasoning behind the decision and thus make transparent any errors that may have been committed. But in this case I do think there was a clear, albeit rough, consensus to delete. The late trend of delete !votes is always telling in cases like this, and Edison's argument (which was in substance if not in form an argument to delete) was particular compelling. So asking it to be re-closed would be unnecessarily bureaucratic. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Comment from closer. Mkativerata is correct that I should perhaps have explained my closing rationale a bit more, but correctly deduces my thinking: During the debate sources were suggested, but despite that, of the late !votes went for "delete" and I decided that there was a better case for "delete". As for the time used to evaluate the debate, that certainly was more than 2 minutes, even though it doesn't seem so. First, I always edit with multiple tabs open and switch between them. Second, I first looked at this debate about a week ago (if I remember correctly) and watch listed it. I often do this with more contentious debates and follow the discussion "in real time" and then close when a consensus seems to be emerging. If people think it is useful at this stage, I can add the above rationale to the AfD and apologize for indeed being a bit brief in this case. --Randykitty (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Allow Recreation. This man was highly notable as perhaps -the only- research scientist working within Lockheed's Skunk Works program to ever speak publicly on the topic of advanced theoretical and experimental propulsion concepts, and the dozens of high quality patents issued under his name and for Lockheed is incontrovertible proof of his employment and scientific standing at the company. He has also appeared in books and mainstream media since The Discovery Channel's "Billion Dollar Secret" video in 1999. Nick Cook describes his meeting with Bushman at Lockheed, and while Cook's conclusions are questionable, his journalistic standing as an aerospace journalist for Jane's Defense Weekly defines him as a credible source. But everything about the Boyd Bushman WP grew increasingly disturbing from the moment that a war of opinions flared up over Bushman's "death bed confession" video. Suddenly that unfortunate video became the major (if not only) subject on this man's WP - it was appalling to witness. Boyd Bushman was an accomplished, ingenious, gentle and patriotic man with a lifetime serving his country's defense efforts, it was Tragic to see his memory reduced to a parody of a circus sideshow. I'm glad the WP about him was deleted - it's better to have no page at all than what was up. But Bushman's unique scientific legacy and his fascinating appearances in the media, and the many curious people who want to know more about him, cry out for a well-written and balanced WP to address the many questions he raised. I hope that one day Boyd Bushman will get the fair and substantive WP he deserved, written by impartial new authors who can write about the whole of this man's story, rather than focusing on the one serious and very public lapse of judgement that he made in his dying days. Informedskeptic (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Overturn to NC or Relist. By the !counting the !votes !criteria, There's no consensus here to do anything. The closing admin certainly has the authority to decide that !votes on either side should be discounted because they don't make policy-based arguments, or a number of other reasons. In that case, however, the people who participated deserve a comprehensive explanation of why. Especially in the case of what's obviously a contentious issue. No such explanation was given. As for the 2-minute review period, I seem to remember (although I can't find the reference now) that this issue has come up a couple of times before. It's not really anybody's place to tell another editor what process flow they should use, but once an issue is raised numerous times, it might be worth considering whether it really is a problem. Personally, I don't see any way a complex AfD like this could be closed without the better part of a half hour devoted to carefully reading everything that was written, taking notes, checking up on the edit histories of suspected WP:SPAs, composing a summary, etc. How this could be done in parallel with closing a whole bunch of other AfDs, or what purpose that would serve, is beyond me. None of the issues in isolation would be enough to make me want to overturn this close, but between the dubious decision, the one-word closing statement, and the unusual speed-editing history, this adds up to a bad close. The best thing is probably to back out the close, relist it for another week, then have a new admin look at it from a fresh perspective. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Comment If you mean with "this issue has come up a couple of times before", in connection with me, you'll have to refresh my memory, because I don't remember that, but perhaps you meant this more in general. As for "How this could be done in parallel with closing a whole bunch of other AfDs", the answer is: it wasn't done in parallel with closing other AfDs. In the space of many hours, that was the only close I did. If you look over my edit history, you'll see that me edit session started 3 hours and 11 minutes before I closed this AfD. During that time, I made a modest number of mostly small edits of minor importance. A lot of the in-between time was spend on this AfD (which, I remind you, I had already been following). So perhaps I made the wrong call with my close and I have no problem with the community deciding that (and if they do, I'll try to learn from that). But I don't think you should dismiss my close on the basis of incorrect information. I spend quite some time on it and it was not a part of a series of closes, but just one single one in the space of a 3 hour edit session. --Randykitty (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Serious question: how do you spend quite some time on something like this and then close with zero explanation? If it's easy, sure. But if it required that much time/thought, doesn't it seem reasonable to expect you to spend some of that time explaining things? And yeah, others doing this type of "multi-page open" closing has certainly come up before. Not sure who it was though. It's a reasonable thing to do, but it does raise doubts when it's paired with a 4 or 5 word close. Hobit (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC) If I'm mixing you up with a somebody else regarding the quick-close, my apologies. But, that was the least of my concerns. While I would have probably argued to delete had I participated in this AfD, I just don't see a delete consensus in the written record, and the one-word close just doesn't give me any confidence that this was carefully considered. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC) I'm satisfied with Randykitty's explanation for an innocent closing error; this doesn't need to be pursued to the bitter end. Also, to me it appears there is a strong delete consensus. (I take into account the sudden influx of one-off accounts and IP editors that became active after UFO enthusiast blogs started posting that the Illuminati were trying to get Boyd Bushman's Wikipedia entry deleted.) BlueSalix (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Endorse. The article isn't encyclopedic and its content is alien nonsense. The closer was unwise not to give a reason for deletion however the keep arguments are weak and don't do anything other than argue this alien nonsense isn't really nonsense. Szzuk (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Comment I obviously goofed in not giving a better closing rationale and can't really remember what I was thinking at that particular moment. If you look at the closes I did later that day (also rather contentious AfDs; I tend to close overdue AfDs, so I guess I get a larger than usual proportion of those), you'll see that this is not usually what I do. I am currently on a borrowed computer and a bad Internet connection, but I'll try to write a closing statement tomorrow. Not doing that at the time of closing was a mistake and I apologize for that. --Randykitty (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Relist / *Allow recreation I think a fair wiki entry highlighting the man's accomplishments should be done. Boyd had an existing article on wiki since 2007. Just because some folks don't like what he shared in a youtube video shouldn't mean his entire existence and work should be deleted / ignored. This isn't fair to him and his achievements. A single paragraph mentioning the controversy could be included to satisfy those who come here after hearing what he said in the 2014 video ( maybe two sentences, if that ). I think his career should be highlighted and most if not each of his patents should be listed and connected with other scientific achievements found on wiki. This is an encyclopedia and his career's efforts are a contribution to modern science. The sockpuppet and meatpuppet issue should be looked into. There were some anonymous and unknown ip addresses voting and adding their share of clout. --HafizHanif (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC) What are some RS that detail the "man's accomplishments?" He was only ever mentioned anywhere in connection with his alien conspiracy theory. He had no career achievements. The fact that UFO-Fansite.blogspot.com claimed he invented (developed) the Stinger missile doesn't mean he invented the Stinger missile. He was a self-aggrandizing nutter. BlueSalix (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Do you have something personally against Boyd? The man has an extensive career in the aerospace industry which garnered over 30 patents! He wasn't just some employee working for 30 years at the same job, he was a private contractor and developed some technologies which are top secret. That's pretty significant and on its own is enough to garner him an entry on wikipedia. There are thousands of insignificant wiki entries which garners the attention of those who like to sweep the wiki floors. The alien thing came up recently, went viral and that brought attention to Boyd's entry which has been here since 2007. Why didn't you and all the other endorsers delete his entry prior to this fall / 2014? What I see is this man's accomplishments are being judged and diluted by haters who dislike what he had to say in some video. People should judge according to the facts of this man's career accomplishments and his merits. There are less significant scientists with wiki entries. --HafizHanif (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Great. What are some sources that detail his "extensive career in the aerospace industry?" Go ahead and post them here and, if they're RS, I'll revoke my endorsement. (Also, no, the alien thing didn't come up recently. Bushman has been claiming alien cover-up for years on the UFO convention circuit. It only went viral recently because they spiced it up with "death bed confession.") BlueSalix (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Here is the list of patents. You could click through each one and see what they are all about: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=boyd+bushman&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= I hope just because a majority consensus has issue with this man isn't grounds to prevent him and his work from being displayed for everyone to learn from... this isn't Nazi Wikipedia, it is supposedly a democratic place where, I assume, rights and reason trump majority ignorant rule. --HafizHanif (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC) A list of patents is irrelevant. We don't create bios that consist of nothing but a list of patents, see: WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Also, a list of patents from the USPTO is a primary source. BlueSalix (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Endorse per Szzuk (talk). Metamagician3000 (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC) endorse This is falling into the "five days of YouTube infamy" level of non-notoreity. The only even vaguely reliable sources are debunkers, and it comes down to "is having a Snopes entry enough?" People saying "peep" give vague assurances; people saying "delete" or "redirect" give concrete evidence. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC) endorse Original article was based on tabloid reports (e.g. Daily Mail) and YouTube videos, not typical RS. Subject of article has no RS detailing his accomplishments outside his so-called "death bed confession." This article could only serve as a magnet for UFO weirdos. It should be salted to prevent recreation. BlueSalix (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC) @BlueSalix – you said “Bushman has been claiming alien cover-up for years on the UFO convention circuit,” but I’ve seen no evidence of this, ever - please provide a RS. I’d also like to see a RS to support this characterization “He was a self-aggrandizing nutter,” which strikes me as possibly libelous, but certainly impertinent - it's plain from his interviews (especially with the rather vacant Sereda) that this is a very kind and patient man. And the facts refute this assertion “He had no career achievements” – the man invented a laser thruster that uses detonated air for propellant, and discovered the principle of magnetic beam amplification…a basic physics principle that was overlooked for 200 years, which is rife with practical applications. Bushman’s patents prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he was a remarkable research scientist and inventor employed at Lockheed in the 1990’s. But there’s also evidence of this in reliable journalistic sources. Nick Cook [3], an aerospace journalist at Jane’s Defence Weekly, describes a personal meeting at Boyd Bushman’s office at Air Force Plant No. 4, Fort Worth TX (‘’The Hunt for Zero Point’’, 2007, pp. 244-256). Cook states: "Boyd Bushman was a senior scientist for Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth Division, the part of the corporation that turned out F-016 and F-22 fighters for the U.S. Air Force." https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0307419436 http://vielewelten.at/pdf_en/the%20hunt%20for%20zero%20point.pdf Video of this interview in Bushman’s office is seen in the 1999 Discovery Channel program ‘’Billion Dollar Secret.’’ It seems that your hostility for the people arguing that the alien doll is a real alien, is being focused against the lamentably gullible, though marvelously accomplished Boyd Bushman. This WP shouldn’t be reduced to a jihad between the “alien believers” and the “alien disbelievers.” This should be about Boyd Bushman, the only black projects research scientist who ever had the courage to speak publicly about his work. Millions of people want to know about this man, Wikipedia has a mandate to oblige them. Informedskeptic (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC) A passing reference in one book does not meet our GNG. Also, you can't defame a dead person under U.S. libel law. I could call Bushman a pedophile if I wanted. And no, Wikipedia does not "have a mandate to oblige" so-called "millions" of UFO enthusiasts. I think you've confused Wikipedia with Above Top Secret. BlueSalix (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC) I want to see your evidence that Boyd "Bushman has been claiming alien cover-up for years on the UFO convention circuit," and that he "was a self-aggrandizing nutter," as you stated. Personal opinions/ideologies are the problem here, not the solution. WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Significant coverage – the extent of coverage is too daunting to comprehensively compile, but includes these sources among hundreds of others: San Antonio Express News, Inquistr, HNGN, World News Bushman also appears as a central figure throughout Davida Sereda’s 2007 documentary From Here to Andromeda Reliable Sources – in addition to the list above, Bushman has appeared in The Discovery Channel's 1999 TV documentary Billion Dollar Secret, as well the book The Hunt for Zero Point (available from Random House), both by Nick Cook. Nick Cook is a veteran aviation and aerospace journalist with over a decade of experience as Aviation Editor for Jane's Defence Weekly probably the world’s most reputable military technology news source. Notability – Boyd Bushman is the only research scientist within the US defense industry’s “black world” to ever speak publicly about his work on advanced research projects. His 28+ known patents are distinguished by their Assignee, the Lockheed Corporation, as well as their scientific ingenuity: Bushman invented a pulsed laser thruster that detonates air to create shock waves for propulsive force, eliminating the need for propellant; an active radar stealth technology; and he discovered an ingenious method for producing an amplified magnetic beam; as well as a method for producing aerodynamic lift without rotors by using standing acoustic waves, among many others. As an inventor, Boyd Bushman rivals or exceeds the ingenuity of Thomas Edison. Like many interested readers of Wikipedia, Boyd Bushman’s notable scientific achievements and his unique position within the defense industry’s top aerospace research programs inspired years of study and interest in his work long before the recent video undermined his public standing. I maintain that falling prey to the hoax *perpetrated upon him* is not a reasonable or justifiable cause to delete him from Wikipedia, and in fact, the current tempest of media coverage only reinforces the need for a fair and balanced WP about this unique individual and his professional achievements. Informedskeptic (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC) The Daily Mail, Mirror, the rest of the tabloids you list, are not RS. The high school graduate and UFO carnival lecturer David Sereda (who claims Earth is a giant space prison built by Martians) is not RS. I didn't have time to go through the rest of this laundry list, but I feel it's safe to dismiss the rest of them if you weren't able to distinguish between RS and non RS in the first few instances. Unfortunately, Boyd Bushman was a self-aggrandizing nutter whose memory will have to live on only on members.fortuncity.com/freakzilla/bushmanlives.html, and not WP. Sorry. BlueSalix (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Of all the bad sources being offered as reliable, this was my favorite. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC) You both seem to be confused about the headings I’ve employed for clarity – everything you cite as “not RS” is listed under my "Significant Coverage" heading, which directly pertains to WP:GNG. Nevertheless, in the post-journalism era, many of those sources are about as good as sources get nowadays, unless a story makes BBC News. As you can see above, the only RS that I’m unambiguous about (since apparently anything other than BBC News, Reuters, Agence France-Presse or the Associated Press is open to RS challenges), is Nick Cook, a veteran Aviation Editor for ‘Jane’s Defence Weekly’, and his book, which is published by Random House). And since Cook actually visited with Boyd Bushman at the Air Force Plan No. 4 in Fort Worth Texas to conduct his videotaped and transcribed interview (while accompanied by a Lockheed minder), there’s no reasonable doubt that Bushman was who Cook said he was – a scientist at Lockheed’s Skunk Works program. And of course there are the patents, which name the Lockheed Corporation as the Assignee. @BlueSalix – if you hold your own assertions to the standards you’ve set here, then you should have RS to demonstrate that Boyd Bushman appeared regularly at ufo conferences, and that he’s a self-aggrandizing nutter. Facts are always nice, because we're not here to fabricate lies, right? #1 - No, I don't need RS to state that Boyd Bushman was a regular fixture on the UFO carnival circuit or he was a self-aggrandizing nutter. Why not? Because I haven't attempted to insert that into a WP article. #2 - I can patent something and name Lockheed as the assginee tomorrow. Anyone can name anyone as the assignee of a patent, with or without the assignees permission. The patents simply show he paid a $130 filing fee and establish absolutely nothing else. #3 - We're not confused by your headings, you seem to be confused by what constitutes significant coverage. Significant coverage has to occur in RS or it never existed, as far as WP is concerned. "Significant coverage" and "reliable sources" are not two separate standards that have to be met, they are the same standard: significant coverage in reliable sources. BlueSalix (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC) 1.) I'm not asking for evidence on behalf of WP content, I'm asking you to support your claims because you made them. And honestly I think you're making things up to advance your "cause"/"crusade" against Bushman. It's obvious that your biased - you nearly called the guy a pedophile for god's sake. So if you can’t support your claim, then just admit that you fabricated it so we can move on. I’ve read a lot about Bushman over the years, and I've never seen anything about an appearance at even a single ufo conference (if I had, I might've actually gone to one). He appeared at a clean energy conference once, but it also included a range of reputable scientists from NASA and major universities. Do you think all scientists are self-aggrandizing nutters? Because there may some truth in that, after all. 2.) Well, that's actually beside the point, since Nick Cook personally visited Boyd Bushman at Air Force Plant No. 4 in Fort Worth, Texas, to conduct his videotaped and transcribed interview with Bushman during his employ at Lockheed (which is publicly available, and I've cited below), so we know that much (after all, a 10+ year Aviation Editor for 'Jane’s Defence Weekly' and mainstream freelance aerospace journalist certainly qualifies as a RS). Anyway, I've never heard of anyone assigning their patents rights to an independent entity, ever, and the idea that someone would do that 28+ times, at a personal expense of at least $10K per patent (that's a conservative estimate for writing and researching previous embodiments, which is SOP in patent law – ask any patent attorney, I know one if you'd like his number). 3.) I see what you're saying, but if the field of "reliable sources" consists of a handful of international news outlets, then we're in trouble - because those folks don't cover much of real interest, and they've been cutting way back on bona fide journalism, at least in the US. So some reasonable level of discretion seems merited, weighing the available facts we have, using our brains to balance quantity vs. quality etc. Bushman has had a Lot of coverage, spread across of range of sources - I found a lot of real, professional media sources, many of which seem basically reputable (maybe not BBC level, but who is?). So I made those headings for clarity, to illustrate that a lot of middling sources, and one or two really solid RS's, should be satisfactory, if not ideal. The headings were directly from the WP on Notability which you referenced as an objection to Bushman meriting a WP. If you go look, you’ll see that it breaks down the "General notability guideline" into five components listed in bullet points; “Significant Coverage,” “Reliable,” “Sources,” “Independent of the subject” and “Presumed.” Nowadays just about the only new items that satisfy an unambiguous historical clarity are Presidential elections, and Kanye West’s love life, so some level of discretion is called for. And we have basically what we need here to justify a WP on Boyd Bushman - it would be nice to have more, sure, but it's better to have a fact-driven WP on the man, than pretend he never rose to the widespread public interest. After all, how much stuff can we reasonably expect to have on a scientist who spent his entire life working in the nation's most secretive defense research projects? BBC News headlines just don’t happen to such people. And honestly, how many WP’s can honestly meet the immaculate standards of RS that you’re demanding here, and why didn't it matter a month ago before this went viral? I'm just saying, it was enough before all this, we have more now, and it’s unreasonable to expect more than we have. The guy was a fascinating figure, with a unique standing in military defense research programs, and a barrel of sophisticated professional achievements which we have in our hands. We have Plenty on this guy. Or at least, enough to merit a factual WP. Informedskeptic (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Uhlrich's lists more than 25,000 peer-reviewed academic journals (collectively publishing more than 1.5 million articles just since 2004), all of which are RS. Any non-fiction book by a reputable author from a major publisher printed in the last 100 years is RS, as is any recent academic textbook. Virtually all of the 1,300+ daily, non-tabloid newspapers in the U.S. are RS, as are thousands of Canadian, UK, Australian, French, etc. newspapers. Thousands of websites from Phys.org to WIRED to Defense News are RS. If you can't find any reference to Boyd Bushman in any of these hundreds of thousands of places spanning hundreds of billions of pages of text, then he doesn't get in WP. If you don't like the rules you can petition to have them changed here: WP:CENTRAL. Until they're changed, however, they apply to Boyd Bushman. That's all there is to it - end of discussion. (P.S. Daniel Raymer, Mary G. Ross, Bert R. Bulkin and dozens of other former legitimate TS-cleared Skunk Works scientists have had exactly zero problem meeting these standards for an article on WP.) BlueSalix (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Uhlrich's lists more than 25,000 peer-reviewed academic journals Unfortunately, privately-employed research scientists at companies like Lockheed, General Dynamics, and Hughes Aircraft, just don’t publish academic papers, so that’s out. Any non-fiction book by a reputable author from a major publisher printed in the last 100 years is RS Nick Cook’s book 'The Hunt for Zero Point' satisfies those criteria (a ten-year veteran Aviation Editor at 'Jane's Defence Weekly' and mainstream freelance aerospace journalist is about as reputable as authors come in this area), and it establishes Bushman as an actual research scientist working at Lockheed’s Skunk Works in Fort Worth. That's a better reference than the Amsterdam News article cited to establish Mary G. Ross’s background there. Virtually all of the 1,300+ daily, non-tabloid newspapers in the U.S. are RS, as are thousands of Canadian, UK, Australian, French, etc. newspapers Okay, that’s a lot more reasonable than I thought. I sifted through a bunch of sources to weed out the rabble, consulting Wikipedia’s assessments of the sources whenever possible, but honestly, pretty much everything nowadays looks like rubbish to me. Even the comparably reputable news sites had enough bloatware to crash my browser. Here are some citations from some of the more or less “mainstream” news sources I found online: The San Antonio Express-News The Raw Story The Arizona Republic TVQC, Quebec The Daily Dot ABC’s Jim Ryan on Newstalk Florida (audio) The Inquistr Georgia Newsday All this proves though is that the recent Bushman story has gotten around, and how. At least 3 million people have seen the video, according to ‘The Raw Story’. Like it or not, Boyd Bushman is now certainly an internationally notable figure, with more mainstream press attention than ever before, and enough solid data to establish his credentials. He should have a WP. But it should not be written by people who can't tell a plastic puppet from a Pleiadian. It should offer the good information we have on the man and his work, and leave the wild speculation to the blogosphere, where it belongs. Informedskeptic (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Those are all exclusively about his alien UFO conspiracy weird-little-green-men woo-woo claims. Our guidelines establish that notability is not achieved by a single event. You can read WP:ONEEVENT if you'd like to familiarize yourself with our guidelines. Further, they provide no information minimally necessary for a WP:BIO. Where was he educated? When was he born? Occupational history is presented in these articles as claims (e.g. "claimed to work for ..."). Did he actually hold any patents or is this a different person named Boyd Bushman, as an editor here has claimed? Your sources provide no information other than someone named Boyd Bushman claimed to once work for Lockheed and died from a probe in the butt from Martians. (And, BTW, real Lockheed and General Dynamics researchers do, indeed, publish.) BlueSalix (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Boyd Bushman was notable years before the recent viral video, and he had a WP before the recent debacle. Which is how I became familiar with his fascinating patents several years ago. Several of the RS provided above tie the Boyd Bushman in the video to the patents, and so do his earlier videotaped interviews, including Nick Cook's interview which took place 15 years ago and isn't woo-woo at all. I've gone into more detail about his below, where you also cynically raised the specter of the fallacious LinkedIn Boyd B. Bushman, who briefly appeared on Wikipedia to promote the new LinkedIn profile he created to stir up some fun (/not). And I've read a Lot of science articles, and I've never seen a single article published by research scientists at Skunk Works, or any other black budget program for that matter. That's why they're called "Classified" black budget projects, which even Congress isn't cleared to supervise. Informedskeptic (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC) The Oversight Subcommittee of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence most certainly does supervise black budgets. And, no, Bushman was not notable before this. He had a WP article that should have been purged long ago, but no one got around to it. Anyway, I don't care. This article is going in the trash bin where it belongs. C'est fin. BlueSalix (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC) It's actually strangely touching to hear someone trust the military industrial complex for a change. Reminds me of the days before warrantless wiretaps and WMD's in Iraq. And we're getting a bit astray from the subject at hand, but I'll play. It's true that while Congress in general is barred from black budget briefings, some elected officials are supposed to know about everything. A handful of members on four Committees are cleared for "special access program" (SAP) briefings, but the DOD has discretion to decide who has a "need to know." And of course, one won't know what to ask, if one's doesn't already know about it, will one? There are some "Waived SAP" programs that may never see any Congressional oversight at all. Which is why all of the people who study black budget projects tend to agree that we don't know how much we don't know, and neither do the members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees and Appropriations Committees. This very question came up in Nick Cook's interview with The Atlantic, I'm sure you're pleased to hear: "In your experience, just how black are these programs? Don't they have to be reported to certain U.S. Congress members?" "Well, the black world has opened up. There are reporting mechanisms designed to keep Congress, or certain very highly cleared members of Congress, aware of what is happening in the black world. However, having said that, there are degrees of black, and at the blackest, there are undoubtedly programs that are not cleared by Congress, again for the very reasons that I have just discussed. For the TV program Billion Dollar Secret I interviewed a congressman called Dana Rohrabacher, who was the chair of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee and of the House Science Committee. Now, he was convinced that the U.S. military had developed an aircraft like the one referred to in the book as Aurora, which is a hypersonic, very fast spy-plane prototype. But he said that his efforts to get any information on that program, if indeed it exists, were constantly frustrated. And he's an influential member of the science panel in Congress." https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/interviews/int2002-09-05.htm And here's a nice quote from an old 1989 brief by the Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division of the Congressional Research Service, "Special Access Programs and the Defense Budget: Understanding the 'Black Budget'": "No one may have access to program information requiring special access controls solely on the strength of rank, title, or position." (p.6) Followed by: "6. What oversight is there for non-intelligence, DOD special access programs?" "There is always some discrepancy in bureaucracies between formal procedures and actual practice. The procedures outlined here reflect DOD procedures as formally outlined in directives and regulations. They may or may not be wholly consistent with actual practice." http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IB87201.pdf It's always comforting when the Congressional Research Service concludes: "well, they're really supposed to inform you guys about this stuff, basically, but y'know, boys will be boys..." And here's what a former member of the Senate Intelligence Committee had to say about it: "We had a classified annex to our bill, and we would hide all sorts of things in there," says Jim Currie, who worked as a Democratic staff member at the Senate Intelligence Committee until 1991 and now teaches at the National Defense University. "In theory, any member of Congress could find out about it, but in reality no one ever came in and checked. ... It's a beautiful way to hide something." http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-08-pentagon-spending_x.htm And then sometimes things just kinda slip, and we see that not everybody's playing by the rules: "in funding requests and authorizations voted on by select committees of the US Congress, the black budget is published with omitted dollar amounts and blacked-out passages. It hides all sorts of strange projects, not just from enemies, foreign and domestic, but from the public and elected officials as well. Last year, for instance, it was revealed that the National Reconnaissance Office had for several years used the black budget to hide from Congress the cost and ownership of a $300 million office building, even though the structure was plainly visible from Route 28 west of Washington, DC." http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/3.11/patton_pr.html Anyway, Boyd Bushman was a notable public figure for years before this ugly mess flared up, and my summation down below makes that clear. Hopefully reason, facts, and compliance to WP:GNG and guidelines will win the day. Informedskeptic (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Endorse Closing admin should have written a more detailed closing summary, but it's clear that the delete decision was informed by strong policy-based arguments made at the AfD; WP:ONEEVENT, WP:BLP1E, and WP:SENSATION, in particular, rather than very emotional but non-policy-based arguments such as "the subject deserves a memorial", or "the subject is notable because of having filed patents", or "tabloids are suitable sources" for the subjects biography. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Comment I have added a closing rationale to the AfD and re-iterate my apologies for not doing so earlier. I consider myself trouted and will try to avoid this mistake in future. --Randykitty (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Comment Here is the list of patents. If this isn't RS, then what in the world is? You could click through each one and see what they are all about: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=boyd+bushman&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= I hope just because a majority consensus has issue with this man isn't grounds to prevent him and his work from being displayed for everyone to learn from... this isn't Nazi Wikipedia, it is supposedly a democratic place where, I assume, rights and reason trump rule by the ignorant or indifferent majority. --HafizHanif (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Patents are primary sources. Also, patents, like scientific articles, get published all the time. Most patents never lead to any application at all. Even if they do, what we need is independent coverage of them in order to establish notability for the inventor. Nobody denies the patents exist, but having patents is not enough to become notable, just as an author does not become notable simply because they have published books. --Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC) The patents have to do with top secret technology. They are weapons systems. I don't think the U.S. government desires to publicly publish weapon's technology. This is a very technical issue here and reason needs to be considered aside from sticking to technicalities. --HafizHanif (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Well, that's too bad. But if something is so secret that we cannot evaluate its impact, then we cannot write about it. However, this does not seem to apply here: if it's patented, it's published, publicly available, and not top secret any more. --Randykitty (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC) You suppose wrong. Wikipedia is not a democracy, see: WP:NOTDEMOCRACY for more information.BlueSalix (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Endorse, with a certain amount of reluctance. It's embarrassing and infuriating that we routinely keep the biographies of bit-part actors but we delete the real inventors. However, this article was about fringe claims and extraterrestrials, and we did need to flush it out.—S Marshall T/C 19:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC) As an inventor/scientist with granted patents I can only agree with your sentiment. My patents are top secret, not because they are hidden from the public but because mine like every other are so unintelligible the general public has literally no chance of understanding them. Szzuk (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC) I actually agree, too, but the sad thing of modern life is that every third class actor or athlete gets coverage in reliable sources, enough to pass GNG. Scientists and inventors don't. WP cannot do anything else but reflect that, but it says something about the priorities of modern society. --Randykitty (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Comment There's one final remark I'd like to make. As I admitted above, I goofed by not providing a rationale when closing. Normally, though, I'd have provided such a rationale if the person filing this DRV would have followed the instructions given on this page and have discussed the matter with me first. We'd probably have landed here, too, but I'd just like to set the record straight. --Randykitty (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC) There is an intense campaign occurring right now on a variety of UFO blogs and message boards for people to register WP accounts and oppose this deletion. This is why we have so many 2-week old editors popping up who don't know how WP works (I'm, frankly, surprised there aren't more showing up yet, but I think many of them can't figure out how to register accounts). I don't believe you did anything that shouldn't correctly be classified as a minor clerical error and o demands for apologies from others are unwarranted and not in GF. BlueSalix (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC) “There is an intense campaign occurring right now on a variety of UFO blogs and message boards for people to register WP accounts and oppose this deletion.” Do you have proof of this? If anything, it seems like there’s a crusade to disappear Boyd Bushman, and frankly, you seem to be leading the charge. Informedskeptic (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Sorry, I don't entertain conspiracy theories. Personal policy. BlueSalix (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Apparently you do, you said “There is an intense campaign occurring right now on a variety of UFO blogs and message boards for people to register WP accounts and oppose this deletion.” Isn't that a kind of conspiracy? I want proof. It's a reasonable request. Or is it okay to just make up inflammatory falsehoods here? Forgive me, I'm new to all this. Informedskeptic (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Apology accepted. BlueSalix (talk) 06:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC) I joined WP a few weeks ago because I was shocked to see Boyd Bushman’s WP totally re-written and suddenly focusing 'entirely' on the recent and pitiful “death bed confession” video, and a bunch of nonsense about plastic aliens. I'm glad it was deleted, as it stood it wasn't fit for a cocktail napkin. As I looked into it, it turned out that a couple of misguided people had decided that Bushman’s WP would be a good place to make the case for real live dead aliens at Area 51. Sad. I’ve studied Bushman’s patents on and off for years; they’re extraordinary. He invented a pulsed-laser aircraft thruster that detonates the air as a propellant – no fuel required (and also 100% eco-friendly). Boyd Bushman was also the *only* research scientist in the “black world,” in this case Lockheed’s famously secretive Skunk Works program, to ever speak publicly and give us a tiny glimpse inside the minds employed behind those darkened doors. He also comes across as a compassionate and thoughtful, albeit tragically gullible, seasoned old scientist who dedicated his life to his country’s most advanced defense research projects. It’s fascinating and substantive stuff. People have a right to learn all of the available facts about this man, and to have a place to cite new findings as they may arise from reputable sources. We shouldn’t let the rueful reality that the New York Times focuses more on witless politicians and reality TV stars, than cutting-edge innovators, to undermine the accessibility of information that people want and need, on topics more scintillating than Kim Kardashian’s rear end. We can't control the dumbing down of the American media, but we don't have to do it 'to ourselves' either. Informedskeptic (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC) That's great that you studied his patents. We don't do original research on WP, though. See: WP:OR for more information. Maybe you can write a book or something about them. Best of luck - BlueSalix (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC) I'm not making a single claim that isn't in the patents themselves, so my statements don't represent original research. But since they are relevant to this discussion, I would suggest that participants engaging in this conversation read a couple of them - I've mentioned two or three gems, cited below. The quality of his work is self-evident to any reasonably educated mind. And it seems disingenuous to rally a crusade against Boyd Bushman's significance (and his character, and his real or fictional public appearances, as some have done here), without being at least marginally familiar with his accomplishments. Informedskeptic (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC) We don't do original research on WP, including personal assessments as to the scientific significance of patent applications, as we have no way to establish the credentials of any of our editors to reach these conclusions. You will need to find a RS that states the significance of his patents. For example, the raw application for the Einstein Refrigerator patent is not an acceptable source to establish the notability of Albert Einstein. However, this article from The Guardian [[4]] about the Einstein Refrigerator patent is an acceptable source to establish the notability of Albert Einstein. Please refer to WP:OR for more information. BlueSalix (talk) 06:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Endorse - "I disagree" is not a valid reason to overturn a deletion discussion. Tarc (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Endorse, relisting is not going to fix the dearth of reliable sources. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC). Comment - I just wanted to point out the class act BlueSalix is. Too bad I can't slap you a high five through my iPad. He slanders a dead man. He makes up instigating and fear mongering claims writing: "there is an intense campaign occurring right now on a variety of UFO blogs and message boards for people to register WP accounts and oppose this deletion" and then follows that with "Sorry, I don't entertain conspiracy theories. Personal policy." How would the genius behind the name BlueSalix know anything going on with ufo websites ( conspiracy theories galore) if he's not over there reading about it? Talk about a "self-aggrandizing nutter." He easily dismisses arguments made, concludes with his bias and comes back with more vitriol. Is this the type that is representative of contributors to Wikipedia? He and some other bozo have trolled me and now have both challenged my contributions, calling for deletion. I wonder how many times the BlueSalix has been blocked... --HafizHanif (talk) 07:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC) You can't slander a dead person under U.S. libel law, which is the jurisdiction that presumably applies to Boyd-O since that's supposedly the dirt in which he's buried (along with his B.A. from BYU [his highest educational credential]). And "slander" is a legal term; it has no colloquial use. Ergo, I have not slandered anyone. This is the third time you've bombastically inserted this claim which is veering very close to violating our WP:CHILLING policy, if it hasn't already. As for the rest of your comment, in which you call me a "bozo" [sic] and declare that I'm biased, you'd be well-advised to read WP:CIVIL and then refactor it. I realize you've only been here for a couple weeks - and are unlikely to stick around after the final nail is hammered into Boyd's WikiCoffin - which is why I'm going to let it slide. BlueSalix (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Again, you misread and arrive at misconstrued assumptions. This is the first time I called you a slanderer. You are thinking my response was InformedSkeptic's response. Secondly, I have not been on here for two weeks or so, but longer. Thirdly, I think I successfully pointed out what I intended as a public notice. Fourthly, just because someone is deceased doesn't mean one should dance over their grave, but doing so says more than I can ever write. --HafizHanif (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC) uh huh BlueSalix (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Comment Please discuss the issue not each other. If someone feels provoked and the other person started it, which I don't want to get into, please just let it slide. It won't matter once this exercise is over. Metamagician3000 (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Comment To lighten the mood, if anyone wants a good laugh, here is the most breathless and frantic denunciation of the "Wikipedia cover-up" charges circulating in the slimy underneath of the web: [[5]]. There are a score more but this was the most hilarious and rambling of those denouncing the deletion of Bushman's entry. BlueSalix (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Regarding Patents Please note that an editor who states his name is "Boyd B. Bushman" claims to be the inventor of the patents in question, that "alien nutcase" Bushman is a different man who simply shared a similar name and used it as part of his UFO con. This underscores the fact that a list of patents will be totally unsuitable for this article unless a RS connects them to the man who claimed there was an alien conspiracy, a simple name correlation is insufficient. BlueSalix (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Nick Cook, a ten-year Aviation Editor for Jane's Defence Weekly and an award-winning mainstream aerospace journalist, personally interviewed Boyd B. Bushman (there's only one, but you already know that) at Air Force Plant No. 4 during Bushman's employ for Lockheed's Skunk Works program. The interview was video recorded and aired in the Discovery Channel's 1999 documentary Billion Dollar Secret, which is about U.S. black budget aerospace programs (an area of some expertise for Nick Cook), and a detailed recounting of the meeting, which Cook transcribed, and discusses in detail in his 2007 book The Hunt for Zero Point. This is a RS firmly tying Boyd Bushman to Lockheed and his impressive list of patents, which of course name Lockheed Corporation as the Assignee of the patents. And although the numerous RS I cited to your specifications early today (listed below) do discuss the recent video, several of them also tie this Boyd Bushman directly to the patents in question, including the radio interview with ABC’s Jim Ryan on Newstalk Florida, among others. Informedskeptic (talk) 11:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC) You keep repeating this Nick Cook bunk (Is "Award Winning" his first and middle name by the way? You prefix his name with that every time you put it in here, as though you're trying to call attention to the fact Boyd-O has that one RS he's clinging to for dear life after the rest have been discredited.) and it keeps getting debunked. I'm not going to do it a ninth time. I get it. You believe there was a guy named Boyd Bushman who, having only got a B.A. from BYU, still became the most brilliant scientist in American history before being assassinated by a Martian butt probe in August while trying to alert the world to an attack by space invaders. The only evidence of his existence is a YouTube video and a 1 paragraph passage from a 1999 book, but he's so important we need to waive WP's standards to get him an entry. You're absolutely welcome to keep trying if you want, I just don't think you're gonna be able to ATS your way into this. But, you know, whatever. BlueSalix (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC) As a point in fact, you've conspicuously ignored Nick Cook's mention every time I've cited him, actually - it's in the record above if you don't believe me. I've also never mentioned his "four Aerospace Journalist of the Year Awards from the Royal Aeronautical Society" before - and that's in the record above too. But this isn't the first time you've just made stuff up, now is it? That's in the record above too. The evidence that Boyd Bushman existed (lol), and was a terrific innovator (albeit, a tragically gullible man), and an overall nice guy...is incontrovertible, based on all of the information we have right now. But one has to be willing to click on the citations, and read them. There are at least 28 patents in his name, some of truly extraordinary quality. There are three lengthy video interviews (Billion Dollar Secret 1999, From Here to Andromeda 2007, and the recent and awful "death bed confession" video). And he's discussed at length in Nick Cook's book The Hunt for Zero Point, 2001. There's also a comprehensive record of his work experience (which was on his own website, so Wikipedia doesn't allow it for a WP reference - but it does exist, and it confirms everything else we know about him). And there's also a comprehensive description of his life, his family, his education, and confirmation of his work record and patents, eloquently described in his family's obituary published in the Arizona Journal - which is also barred from a WP, but further supports the depth and breadth of this man and his achievements. And I don't know what ATS means, but millions of people are now aware of Boyd Bushman - even more than were aware of him before the recent and predominantly lamentable video - so it's certain that we'll see additional reliable sources of information about him, which I trust will confirm the consistent though sometimes non-RS information that we have now. Informedskeptic (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Re Nick Cook's credentials, notability is not inherited. This conflict regarding the Boyd Bushman story reminds me of the kerfluffle a few years ago over a similar 'silly season' story that went viral across many dozens of sources, many of them quite reliable: Time_travel_urban_legends#1928_cell_phone_user. The sheer number of news outlets that reprinted the story - during the time period around Halloween week - were staggering. As I recall, there were impassioned arguments for giving the story its own article, or giving the unknown filmmaker who originated the story his own bio, or filling up half the Charlie Chaplin article with time travel nonsense. Luckily, Wikipedia's editorial policies (WP:ONEVENT and WP:SENSATION) prevailed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC) The WP:NOTINHERITED guideline doesn't apply here because the 1999 documentary film and the 2001 book prominently feature Boyd Bushman, which makes Bushman a key subject of the RS, establishing his WP:NOTABILITY per the WP:GNG. And since many of us have been aware of Boyd Bushman for years, occasionally checking the Wikipedia article for updates about the man prior to the recent and tragic video, the WP:ONEEVENT and WP:SENSATION policies are also inapplicable, as far as I can see. How weird is it that Boyd Bushman had a sensible Wikipedia page for years before the recent video popularized (perhaps "crucified" would be the better term in this instance) the man, but the moment when millions of people want to see what he was all about, suddenly we have this big problem offering a Wikipedia page about him. How does that make any kind of sense? I forced myself to watch that rotten "deathbed disclosure" video again last night, and it's just sad to see it - it's the video equivalent of a drunken voicemail rambling gone viral: we should all pray that someone doesn't leak our most embarrassing and senile moment like this. It's clear as day that the poor old guy is weak and confused, struggling to even speak clearly as he riffles through all that rubbish that someone's been "feeding" him (his word) for the last 13 years. But he was one of the most fascinating figures in the mysterious realm of classified aerospace R&D long before this latest hullabaloo; it's not right to erase him from the public encyclopedia just because people didn't like what he had to say on his deathbed, probably pumped full of toxic chemotherapy drugs. Informedskeptic (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Closure / Salting Request - After a thorough discussion, we have 10 !votes to endorse the deletion all from seasoned editors. We have 4 !votes to overturn the deletion, all half from editors whose accounts are less than one month old. Per WP:SNOWBALL, and due to the increasingly hysterical/frantic tone being taken by the new editors, I think immediate closure is warranted to protect both the encyclopedia and our editors. Consideration should also be given to WP:SALTing the article titles "Boyd Bushman" and "Boyd B. Bushman." BlueSalix (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC) I'm certain you are mistaken about at least a bit of that. Makes it a bit tricky to take your word for the rest. Hobit (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Gee, I've only been around for a month? Who'd have thunk it? -- RoySmith (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Noted and corrected. BlueSalix (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Comment Asking For Clarity - BlueSalix, you say Wikipedia is not a democracy, but then you count 'votes' as if a majority consensus somehow chooses something. If Wikipedia is in fact not a democracy, then what are you counting? --HafizHanif (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC) WP:NOTDEMOCRACY is a good resource to obtain clarification on the difference between majority voting and consensus. BlueSalix (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Comment - Randykitty, a few things: 1) I wonder if there are any sockpuppets or sleepers which have been used in this discussion. 2) I see few cheerleaders with much to say and several supporters of these cheerleaders with little to say. 3) I don't care whether people look into the subject matter of aliens or not, doesn't make a difference in most people's personal lives, but as an example; it is interesting to read BlueSalix being vehemently against the subject matter, then reading him share his reading of what is going on in ufo fan websites. It seems like a contradiction. I see a colorful way of saying certain things and everyone just seems to accept it / ignore it, while continue their own barrage of ridicule over the subject matter... which again, people are free to opine what they will regarding aliens, Britney Spears, Kim's nudity for publicity and $$ or peanut butter and jelly on White Bread... but the manner in which this topic was discussed was quite foul at times. 4) I'd also like to ask you if anything written on here did in fact constitute Gross Incivility Wikipedia:Civility. Thanks --HafizHanif (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Since you've announced, in a 1200-word essay on my Talk page, you will be block-lobbying me at ANI for WP:CIVIL, I'm sure they can sort it out without dragging Randykitty into this slow-motion car wreck. BlueSalix (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC) I quoted what you said and added my concerns. I mentioned Randykitty here because she seems to have ultimate authority in choosing the fate of this entry, but also to remind her and others of the manner in which this seven year old entry was deleted. I mentioned my concerns to her and would like to hear her feedback regarding my four points. The record speaks for itself as does the manner in which this issue was debated. --HafizHanif (talk) 05:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Pro-Tip: usually not advisable to raise WP:CIVIL in ANI a few hours after you launch into a tirade in which you call the editor you're denouncing a "bozo," a "slanderer," and a string of other invectives. But, you know, whatever. (The scary part is, this dude will be probably be an admin within the next 6 months.) BlueSalix (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Also, you forgot to actually file the ANI - you only left the warning on my Talk page. I have filed it against myself on your behalf here. BlueSalix (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Overturn. Per Informedskeptic list of reliable sources that he listed in this deletion review. Also, in addition, the initial closer, Randykitty, wrote in the closing note added on November 22, "The debate has clearly established that Bushman existed and was a researcher with Lockheed with a number of patents to his name." Randykitty did not have access to that extensive list of reliable sources found later by Informedskeptic. So, WP:GNG requirements have now been met. Remaining objections are WP:IDONTLIKEIT concerning the topics discussed. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC) The disreputable "sources" InformedSkeptic provided above (Daily Mail, etc.) were the list of sources originally provided in the article; see: [[6]], so obviously Randykitty did have access to them as they were all in the article. Timeshifter has previously tried to get user-created funeral home listings inserted as RS into the article about not-notable alien conspiracy theorist Boyd Bushman, so her analysis may be suspect. Finally, Timeshifter was WP:CANVASSED here by HafizHanif (see: [7]). I request either her !vote be struck, or I be permitted to canvass my friends to come here and !vote as well. BlueSalix (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC) InformedSkeptic did a much more detailed analysis of the issue of reliable sources here in the deletion review. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC) That's fine if he analyzed the tabloids Daily Mail and Mirror; they're still disreputable and not RS, just like the user-generated website obituary you wanted to use in the original article to establish Boyd-O's status as a black ops secret agent fighting the space alien threat or whatever it was you were blasting the Talk page with when you started 8 separate discussions on the same topic in a 24 hour period. BlueSalix (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC) I consistently ignore your repetitive BS, BlueSalix (unintended pun). I address issues only once where possible. See my previous replies on the talk page, and in the article deletion discussion. I have tens of thousands of edits on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, and I am used to people like you. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC) "Your repetitive BS?" "I'm used to people like you?" - I think you really need to observe Metamagician3000's advise and calm down. BlueSalix (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC) I'm calm. Please see my previous replies. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Note to other readers. I have noticed a pattern. BlueSalix frequently mischaracterizes the viewpoints and past comments of others. For example, concerning me: "establish Boyd-O's status as a black ops secret agent fighting the space alien threat". So readers who want to know what others have written should go to the original locations of their comments. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Endorse as within discretion. I think it is possible an adequate biography can be produced and I hope someone will be able to do this. However. I suggest waiting a while to let things calm down. Our general notability criteria encourage the sort of silly article this one had become while deprecating any serious article. WP:ONEEVENT disallows some of the foolishness but unfortunately does little to help sensible content. Thincat (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Endorse as within discretion. Delete "votes" were better argued. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Comment / Gathering Consensus to Relist I appreciate Thincat's suggestion about editing in an adequate biography sans ufo / alien references. Perhaps a lock can be put on the page and specific editors / admins assigned to keep watch so the entry doesn't become sensationalized. This would be fair. I also acknowledge Timeshifter's pointing out what RandyKitty wrote. The objections seemingly desire to strain out a gnat in referencing all criteria hurdles to defeat this scientist's entry. The reader can judge by the tone and manner in which the objections have been written. It should be clear to see those objections falling under the WP:IDONTLIKEIT portion of wiki statutes, besides the use of colorful language. Points that have been made have been ignored. As to the notion that I invited TiimeShifter, it is open for the public to see that I did ask him, and I did this not knowing that it was a no-no. So my apologies for not knowing that inviting folks to give their opinion was wrong. I haven't read all the rules on Wikipedia and have read them since they've been pointed out by many editors on this page and other places. With that said, I would like to point out that his input and discussions at the talk page were extensive and independent of me. One could assume he would not have come here to give his point of view on his own without me asking, and one could not deny that he would have come here on his own without me asking. So judge for yourselves if this was done in malice or blatant disregard to the rules. One could read the date and time I did reach out to him and his response... and I left it at that. I am surprised he did say something. As to teamwork and the notion of further wrongdoing by any two editors, I would like to ask anyone to see where else I and TimeShifter appear anywhere on Wikipedia together other than our talk pages and on this particular entry. --HafizHanif (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC) WP:CANVASSING other editors is not permitted whether you have a history of interaction with those other editors or not. Since the deletion of this nonsense article is clearly going to be upheld, I'm not going to press the matter, however. BlueSalix (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Thank for sharing that link again. I appreciate the grace. --HafizHanif (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC) You're welcome. BlueSalix (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Endorse If this was relisted and I was asked to close, the outcome would be the same. I can't even begin to rationalize why we're discussing an AFD where the principal arguments for inclusion were "BUT ALIENS!", "THE MAN IS AWESOME" and "HE HAS MANY PATENTS!!!". Also, we need less fringe, not more. This is so far up the fringe ladder it's not even funny. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Endorse deletion - I would suggest overturning due to the lack of closing explanation but it would come down to the same result. Besides, Randy has added his rationale to the closing statement now anyway, so this would be bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, which is pointless. A comment on the subject itself: there is no reliable source establishing that the Boyd Bushman that so many people have been digging up info on is the same Boyd Bushman who allegedly appears in the video. For the argument that the claims must be true because nobody has proven them false, I refer you to Russell's teapot. Ivanvector (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Endorse—Delete !votes are grounded in policy, keep !votes aren't, not really much else to say. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Endorse I'm not really seeing any new argument here that changes the prior consensus. The Delete votes were grounded in policy and the keep votes weren't. Absent some spectacular and new argument there's no reason to undo the delete.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Update on Discussion As of this time-stamp, there are 14 !votes to endorse the deletion (100% by editors with more than 60 days of edits) and 6 !votes to reinstate the article (50% by editors with less than 60 days of edits). The most common position of endorsers is that the deletion fell within discretion based on a combination of quantity and substance of arguments in favor of deletion. The most common position of reinstaters is that Boyd Bushman has/had "information that people want and need." BlueSalix (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Endorse deletion. Where a topic is both WP:FRINGE and lacking independent sources, it's impossible for us to maintain a neutral article. The very notion that the deletion should be overturned because it's a conspiracy to hide Bushman's revelations is further evidence that the article would have ongoing neutrality problems. bobrayner (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC) *Keep Since a consensus is not arrived at by votes, it doesn't make sense for anyone to count anything. I see much grandstanding and ad-hoc arguments in response to what positive consensus states. The man is identified in two documentaries as Boyd Bushman who worked with Lockheed Martin, with patents attributed to a Boyd Bushman who invented items and filed those patents in the same time frame the Boyd Bushman in the two documentaries worked with Lockheed Martin. There is a reference to him in a book, also having worked for Lockheed Martin. There is no other independent citation of another Boyd Bushman having worked for Lockheed Martin during that same time. Ergo, it is the same man! And what in the world does tenure have to do with weight in giving an opinion on this medium? The bureaucracy of many governments is weighted down with tenured incompetent people. With that being said, why do people assume tenure on Wikipedia means they are qualified to draw a consensus over new editors? There is a consensus to build a new / restore an entry with what has already been established and discard the references to ufos / aliens. A lock should be placed on this entry so it cannot be later tampered with without someone noticing. --HafizHanif (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC) You already !voted. You don't get unlimited !votes. If you have something new to say, go ahead and say it but don't add an additional "Keep" in an effort to pad the UFO enthusiast side in this discussion. I have struck your "Keep" as an AGF edit, AGFing that you did this in error. If, indeed, you intended to !vote multiple times, you should undo my strike and we can address this elsewhere. BlueSalix (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC) I am going to acknowledge and directly respond to you this one last time. Voting doesn't matter, remember you so stated somewhere far above and added so many other words. All the new voters seem to not have read anything other than your bitter criticism. You've provided entertainment, so much applause goes to you. -- HafizHanif (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC) I think you may not be aware of the difference between voting and !voting. Also, thank you for your applause. BlueSalix (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Endorse - the "but he's real" arguments are entirely unconvincing, such that I can see why the closer wasn't convinced by them. The "delete crowd" poked holes in the claims of the "keep crowd" that still haven't been filled. Deletion on the basis that coverage is solely confined to tabloid and fringe publications is perfectly within the bounds of discretion. I'd remind participants that closers are not required to add extensive rationales - it's a courtesy and one that the closer has (in this case) gone back and afforded us. The added rationale is comprehensive and serves only to reinforce and restate the flimsiness of the "keep crowd's" arguments. St★lwart111 00:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Yes, the closer ( Randykitty ) was so convinced she wrote this November 22nd: "The debate has clearly established that Bushman existed and was a researcher with Lockheed with a number of patents to his name." It seems some on here like to capitalize on readers who skim over this massive thread and read only the hysterical things... which are from the nays regarding this entry. --HafizHanif (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC) The "keep crowd" has already established the argument, but it continues to be ignored. It has been highlighted by TimeShifter and InformedSkeptic. Reread their last points above and there you will find the. -- HafizHanif (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Yes, I've read them, and the AFD discussion and most of the supposed sources. We're not here to re-prosecute the AFD, something many here seem to have forgotten. This isn't "AFD, Round 2". The "keep crowd" got their chance to establish their argument in the AFD and they were ignored because (collectively) it wasn't a very good argument and much of it consisted of "he exists". I believe the closer wrote that because that was a significant thrust of many "keep" arguments - one that he wanted to acknowledge before dismissing it as irrelevant to the question of notability (which he was absolutely right to do). I am undeterred by long threads but, quite plainly, much of this one misunderstands the purpose of the Deletion Review process. St★lwart111 01:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Comment / Request for Clarification and Reliable Sources on Boyd Bushman @RandyKitty and Administrators – Please clarify the WP conditions not currently met for the Allow Recreation of Boyd Bushman’s article in light of this discussion page. It appears that some editors who forget the WP:NAM policy either object on the grounds of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT or feel that the subject fails to comply with WP: NOTABILITY – "General notability guidleline," which states “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.” This topic now seems to meet that criteria, as additional RS have been produced (although routinely ignored by everyone, it seems). Specifically, we have: 1.) Billion Dollar Secret, Boyd Bushman is the key figure in this 2-hour documentary that aired on The Discovery Channel in 1999, about top secret US aerospace programs. The production was written and directed by Nick Cook, a highly respected mainstream aerospace journalist for Jane’s Defence Weekly. This event signaled Boyd Bushman’s arrival as a notable public figure. 2.) The Hunt for Zero Point Nick Cook’s 2001 investigative book published by Random House about the history of the US black budget programs, which focuses on Cook’s videotaped interview with Boyd Bushman at Bushman’s Lockheed office situated within Air Force Plant No. 4 in Fort Worth, Texas. Nick Cook is regarded as an expert in black budget aerospace programs, and in addition to his long tenure at Jane’s, has written freelance aerospace articles for respected newspapers like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. It’s worth noting here that just yesterday BlueSalix nominated Nick Cook’s Wikipedia page for deletion, right after I cited Nick Cook as a RS in this discussion. Sometimes I think it must be very liberating to live free of moral and ethical conscience. 3.) From Here to Andromeda, David Sereda’s documentary film that revolves around the lengthy interview that he conducted with Bushman at the scientist's home office. Despite Sereda’s difficulty understanding basic science, Bushman provides compelling behind-the-scenes insights into his work at Lockheed Corporation’s top secret research lab at Skunk Works division. Bushman appears to be the only research scientist within black budget programs to publicly discuss on-going advanced propulsion research. 4.) 27+ Patents for Lockheed Corporation - while these documents registered at the US Patent and Trademark Office are WP:PS material, they are permitted to corroborate facts "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." And since this policy directs us to take PS at face value rather than making wild interpretations about their hypothetical validity or not, we can use them as evidence that Boyd Bushman produced these patents for Lockheed Corporation throughout the 1990’s, since the patents themselves name Lockheed Corporation as the “Assignee” (rights holder) of Bushman's inventions. 5.) Additional 'significant coverage in reliable sources' spans a dizzying breadth of recent newspaper articles and radio: The San Antonio Express-News The Raw Story The Arizona Republic TVQC, Quebec The Daily Dot ABC’s Jim Ryan on Newstalk Florida (audio) The Inquistr Georgia Newsday In closing, I’d like to say that I’m new here and learning as I go, but I’ve been reading up on Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, and I noticed that Wikipedia supports administrative discretion. This is wise, because in some cases “mob rule” threatens objectivity and the mission of Wikipedia as I understand it: to provide quality online encyclopedia content on notable topics with fair and impartial, informative articles of interest. And frankly as a new editor here, I’m deeply troubled by the unscrupulous tactics I’ve seen employed on this discussion page – at least one prolific editor has stooped to fabricating and disseminating lies to “win” this debate, and intentionally creating a counterproductive “bully pit” environment where facts are ignored and obfuscated, and a “moving target” of policy objections are disingenuously applied ad hoc to create confusion, and undermine substantive discussion. Thank you for reading. Informedskeptic (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Overturn to No Consensus - The closing of this AfD was atrocious - an abrupt deletion without any explanation, despite a very clear split opinion in the debate among the participating editors, with three days of silence by the closing admin before an unsatisfactory explanation was put forth to explain the deletion. While efforts were made to improve the article while the AfD was underway, it became an out of control affair with too many participants stepping over each other's editing. I would recommend reversing the closure to No Consensus and allowing time for editors that are serious about fixing the article to work on bringing it up to grade. The subject can easily be revisited within a month for another go-round on whether it is deserving of deletion. And Adoil Descended (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Comment Let me make a small footnote here. Yes, I did not initially provide a rationale for the close (and have already apologized for that multiple times). However, I provided a rationale as soon as I found a moment for that (as the note on my talk page says, I am currently traveling with only intermittent Internet access and limited time to edit WP). In addition, if the DRV filer had followed established procedure and first discussed the issue with me on my talk page, I would have provided that rationale before the DRV would have opened. Thanks --Randykitty (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC) I'm actually glad the old article is down; it wasn't suitable or salvageable. And I don't want to bug you during your trip RandyKitty, but I'd like to ask that sometime before this DRV is closed, you let us know what policies or guidelines would have to be met for a verdict to Allow Recreation of this article from scratch. Thank you. Informedskeptic (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC) That's an easy one: WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO or WP:ACADEMIC (an article doesn't need to meet all three, just one is enough). But make sure that you understand what are considered to be reliable and primary/secondary/tertiary sources. And the travel is over, I'm at home in bed and things should return to normal over the next few days (once I'm caught up with stuff that accumulated during my absence). --Randykitty (talk) 13:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC) I'll add that reorienting the article as to cover an internet phenomenon might be a better way of thinking about the topic. Most of the references I've looked at are along the lines of "Wacky old guy goes on at length about aliens on Youtube!". That doesn't help establish the notability of the person, but it might establish the notability of the video. Alternatively, you might decide that discretion is the better part of valor and let this one go. I'm dealing with a parent with dementia who has said many wacky things, but I don't think there's a need to memorialize them in an encyclopedia (even if Glen Beck believed them). Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Thank you both for your constructive and thoughtful replies, RandyKitty and Lesser Cartographies – it’s nice to feel like part of a dispassionate and earnest editing discussion about this contentious topic. The wave of contempt I ran into when I arrived here was jarring and demoralizing. I’ve been reading more about primary/secondary/tertiary sources and Bios, and I still have more reading to do, but I think I’m starting to understand the important role of third-party sources. It seems that perhaps many of the closure endorsements are based on the fact (assuming that other editors are checking the facts, it's hard to tell) that the only RS we have to establish Bushman’s scientific standing is perhaps more of a secondary source – an aviation journalist filming and writing about a personal interview (but it was done in his role as a journalist, so I’m still a bit unclear about it). It would be better to have a RS who had never met Bushman publishing about him – that would be a genuine third party source, I’m thinking. The problem being, that the RS’s we have (at least they appear to be RS by BlueSalix’s explanation to me), are all writers jumping on the “what a crazy old idiot this guy was, saying all this bunk about an alien doll and Area 51, lolol!”) – but that’s not at all what was substantive, notable, and compelling about this man. And you’re right Lesser Cartographies, if it's a choice between joining the hysterical lynch mob that has reared up since the recent video appeared, and letting history forget Boyd Bushman, I’d rather bow out and retain my respect for his inventiveness and his courage to go public in the previous interviews that he conducted with Cook and Sereda. But here’s the thing – this recent debacle was so huge that pretty soon, somebody is going to investigate this man and write about his full story. And in light of his actual career and scientific achievements, people will see this latest video for what it actually is - the tragic effort of a nice old guy who thought he had a big revelation to share with a misled public, losing his marbles on the way out the door, completely snookered by that cowboy-hat wearing con artist hugging a Photoshopped ghost in that stupid alien ghost photo. What concerns me though, is this – what editor-in-chief is going to approve an investigate piece about a guy who doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page? How many journalists have tried to pull up Bushman’s Wikipedia page in the last few weeks to see what we actually knew about this man, and quickly lost interest when they discovered that Wikipedia deemed the article worthless (well, in it's most recent incarnation, it was, honestly)? We may be destroying the only chance we’ll ever have to verify the truth about this man’s fascinating background, because a couple of inexplicably rancorous skeptics, fueled by the mockery of countless online articles and the ridiculous credulousness of the “alien truther” crowd, decided to wash their hands of the whole rotten business and wipe Boyd Bushman - a man who apparently saved untold American lives through his scientific contributions to our military defense capabilities from the RedEye missile to the stealth bomber - from the public encyclopedia entirely. It’s a conundrum. Informedskeptic (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC) If an editor-in-chief relies on whether or not a subject has a Wikipedia article to determine whether or not their publication should cover them then they should be sacked because that is the express and polar opposite of the way Wikipedia works. We don't publish things here in an effort to give them credibility, we wait until subjects have received coverage elsewhere and then reflect that coverage here. We do not publish original thought or original research or original stories. We're not here to right WP:GREATWRONGS. When multiple somebodies publish his story (properly) then we can do so here. You're barking up the wrong tree if you think we'll ever publish first. St★lwart111 02:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Well, Wikipedia already published an article about Boyd Bushman that was up and remained unchallenged for several years, if we're being honest here. Two feature-length documentaries and a published RS book which all revolve around interviews with Boyd Bushman, plus the additional verification of his exotic employment background and scientific achievements established by his patents, were enough to have a nice little article about him before all this hullaboo started. Maybe, in theory, he didn't merit a page to begin with. And maybe, RS editors aren't swayed by Wikipedia: I'd like to believe that. But where the rubber meets the road, this page got deleted this month because people didn't like the public debacle created by his demented "deathbed disclosure" video. And maybe, in practice, what happens here will influence future events. Informedskeptic (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC) The Boyd Bushman article was unchallenged for years because, frankly, no one knew about it. Wikipedia is edited by everyday people, not some mysterious force. As the original AfD'er I can tell you exactly how it went down: (1) I had never heard of Boyd Bushman before, (2) as part of my IRL research activities I monitor the blogs and message boards for a variety of hate groups and conspiracy theorists (essentially "the cultic milieu" - a famous term coined by the sociologist Colin Campbell) - I first learned about Bushman through a series of posts to Above Top Secret, (3) I immediately checked to see if he had a WP article, (4) seeing he had an article I then checked the references, (5) seeing the references were all non-RS I nominated it for deletion. It was all pretty routine. A-B-C-1-2-3. All the best - BlueSalix (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Endorse close. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC) Comment Re: Significant historical contributions - Reading through the WP:BIO (The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field) I realized that we've missed something else: proof of Bushman's scientific notability through the many subsequent patents that cite his earlier patents as prior art embodiments. Just as a scientific paper gains notability as academic authors cite their papers when it contributes to future advancements, good patents lead to a growing body of patents based on that work. And frequently, those scientists have no direct connection to the author of the patents that led to their own advancements. I saw a number of cases like this in Bushman's patent record on Google Patents. It proves that Bushman made significant contribution to the historical record of technological progress in the aerospace industry - his seminal work on stealth technology is one key example where I noticed a lineage of developments based on his original patent. Informedskeptic (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC) I've noticed that too Informedskeptic, thanks for sharing this. Perhaps there are several articles on stealth technology which references one of the inventions which built upon one or several of Boyd's patents. --HafizHanif (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC) And when someone publishes such an analysis of his patents in a reliable source, drawing the same conclusions you have, let us know. St★lwart111 02:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC) The point I’m making is simply this: forward citations are an established mainstream method of measuring the significance of patents, just like RS guidelines at Wikipedia establish the importance or “notability” of a topic. If this is in question, I’ve cited numerous RS’s below to demonstrate the point. This seems to bear directly on this statement in the WP:ANYBIO guideline, which states: “Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.” “Qualitatively similar results are obtained when patents are weighed by citations, although citation-weighing generally increases the importance of USPTO patents. This is expected since citations proxy for patent quality and patent quality may to some extent be observed by the acquiring firm (Hall et al., 2005).” https://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~sb135/bio/RP_Final.pdf “Since the landmark work of Trajtenberg (1990), citation-weighed patent indexes have been shown to be strongly correlated with the social value of innovations (Trajtenberg, 1990), peer evaluation of their technical importance (Albertet al., 1991), renewal decisions (Harhoff et al., 1999; Thomas, 1999), and firm value (Belenzon, 2009; Bloom and Van Reenen, 2002; Deng et al., 1999; Hall et al., 2005; Hirschey and Richardson, 2004). Hall et al. (2005), in particular, find that investors are able to accurately forecast the expected value of patented inventions, as it is later confirmed by future citations.” https://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~sb135/bio/RP_Final.pdf “The quantitative analysis of this paper is conducted in a Tobin’s q framework. A firm’s knowledge assets are modeled as being accumulated in a continuously ongoing innovative process in which R&D expenditures reflect innovative input, patents record the successful innovations that can be appropriated by the firm, and citations received by the firm’s patents (forward citations) measure the relative “importance” of the patents.” “A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations” http://www.tau.ac.il/~manuel/pdfs/a%20penny%20for%20your%20quotes.pdf “For both forward and backward citations, the measures fall into three categories: importance measures are based on the number of citations made or received; distance measures relate to the proximity or remoteness of the cited or citing patents, across both time and technology space; and originality or generality measures relate to the dispersion of citations made or received across different areas of technology space.” http://www.nber.org/reporter/summer98/jaffe_summer98.html "Number of citations received in 5 year time after publication. Corrected for patent equivalents. More citations received => more valuable patent." “Measuring patent quality and radicalness: new indicators,” OECD Directorate for Science Technology and Industry, Economic Analysis and Statistics, “The Output of R&D activities: Harnessing the Power of Patents Data,” 2012 http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/ISG/patents/documents/Squicciarini_IPTS_25May2012.pdf And many of Bushman's patents are cited in numerous and diverse patents by some of the world's leading innovators: it’s all listed on the "Referenced by" section of each of his patents, which are publicly available from the USPTO and Google Patents. For example, his "Apparatus powered using laser supplied energy" (which is actually a pulse-detonation laser rocket that burns the air for fuel - Lockheed likes to use droll names on its patents), has 13 forward citations, including a pulsed detonation engine by McDonnell Douglas and a Laser augmented turbojet propulsion system by Northrop Grumman. Nearly all of Bushman's patents exhibit this kind of pedigree, which is available for anyone to see and interpret for themselves. And by the WP:BASIC guideline, which states "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject," then I don't see why a Boyd Bushman Wikipedia page couldn't say something like "Boyd Bushman's patents for Lockheed have subsequently been cited on patents for Boeing, The United States Air Force, Carnegie Mellon University, General Electric, and many other leading innovators in industry and academia. I'd also like to mention that I found confirmation of his employment at General Dynamics on some of his patents, which were originally assigned to General Dynamics in 1991, then tranferred to Lockheed in August of 1993, presumably when he switched jobs. And I also discovered that his high-voltage stealth radar absorption patent was cited a year later in another Lockheed patent by the unremarkable name of "Vehicle." Which is actually some weird new kind of next gen stealth fighter that makes the Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk look like a Tonka toy. Seriously, take a look at that thing - it looks like something George Lucas would come up with. Informedskeptic (talk) @Informedskeptic: At this point you're asking for a significant change in our notability guidelines in order to get your article undeleted. That's not going to happen here. Take this up at WP:RSN. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC) I'll check that out, thanks. I thought the spirit of the notability guidelines was to demonstrate that someone is notable in their field, per the "Average Teacher" test. I was also thinking we could use some help for an expert in the area of inventors/scientists/etc., since they're an unusual case. I found this thingamabob somewhere along the way but I don't know how to use it: Template:expert-subject Any help on that? Gracias! Informedskeptic (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC) @Informedskeptic: Will reply on your talk page. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC) References
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.