Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:VFU)
Jump to: navigation, search
This page deals with the Deletion discussion process. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.

Administrator instructions

Deletion Review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.



Deletion Review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there was a substantive procedural error(s) in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion Review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment;
  2. when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed); or
  9. to seek reversal of an AfD consensus to redirect without deletion. Instead, seek consensus, on the talk page of the redirect target, to re-create the spinout.

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.



Before listing a review request, please:

  1. discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #Purpose.
  2. please check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Commenting in a deletion review[edit]

In the deletion review discussion, please:

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
  • Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion[edit]

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews[edit]

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

Steps to list a new deletion review[edit]


Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.


Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

}} ~~~~

Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:

|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
}} ~~~~

Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.


Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2014 November 23}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2014 November 23|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is different than the deletion review's section header:


Active discussions[edit]

23 November 2014[edit]

Serhiy Bondarchuk(Heaven's Hundred)[edit]

Serhiy Bondarchuk(Heaven's Hundred) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

He was recently awarded title Hero of Ukraine, the highest national title. Anatoliy (Talk) 01:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  • temporarily undeleted for discussion DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • If restored, then a space should be added to the page title. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation/restoration. The Hero of Ukraine claim appears accurate [1] and meets, as near as I can tell, WP:SOLDIER #1. (Do not be confused, as I was, by Serhii Bondarchuk, a 2010 recipient with a similar name.) It appears the number of recipients has with this last decree increased by about 100 names, ru:Список_Героев_Украины#2014_.D0.B3.D0.BE.D0.B4 may be informative. The title needs cleaning up. The prior text was largely a memorial, not an encyclopedia article, and will need to be largely removed. --j⚛e deckertalk 05:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Nazar Voytovych[edit]

Nazar Voytovych (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

He was recently awarded title Hero of Ukraine, the highest national title. Anatoliy (Talk) 01:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  • temporarily undeleted for discussion DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation as above. The prior text was largely a memorial, not an encyclopedia article, and will need to be largely removed. --j⚛e deckertalk 05:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Oleksandr Kapinos[edit]

Oleksandr Kapinos (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

He was recently awarded title Hero of Ukraine, the highest national title. Anatoliy (Talk) 01:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  • temporarily undeleted for discussion DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation as above. The prior text has problems, not quite as bad as the previous two, but still requiring real work. --j⚛e deckertalk 05:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

19 November 2014[edit]

Boyd Bushman[edit]

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 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 ([2] [3]). 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 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: 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[1], and discovered the principle of magnetic beam amplification[2]…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 [4], 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."
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.
GNC[3]: "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:
The Blaze[4], NY Daily News[5], The Daily Mail[6], San Antonio Express News[7], Inquistr[8], The Daily Mirror[9], HNGN[10], World News[11]
Bushman also appears as a central figure throughout Davida Sereda’s 2007 documentary From Here to Andromeda[12]
  • Reliable Sources – in addition to the list above, Bushman has appeared in The Discovery Channel's 1999 TV documentary Billion Dollar Secret[13], as well the book The Hunt for Zero Point (available from Random House[14]), both by Nick Cook[15]. Nick Cook is a veteran aviation and aerospace journalist with over a decade of experience as Aviation Editor for Jane's Defence Weekly[16] 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[17]; an active radar stealth technology[18]; and he discovered an ingenious method for producing an amplified magnetic beam[19]; as well as a method for producing aerodynamic lift without rotors by using standing acoustic waves[20], 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, 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 GNC. 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[21] 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 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)
  • 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: 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 [[5]] 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)

17 November 2014[edit]

16 November 2014[edit]

Recent discussions[edit]

10 November 2014[edit]


January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December