Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul LaViolette (2nd nomination)

Paul LaViolette

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Paul LaViolette
• Articles for deletion/Paul LaViolette (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Paul LaViolette (3rd nomination)

Paul LaViolette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Subject has requested deletion. At first glance it appeared to pass WP:ACADEMIC, however, as I went about cleaning it up, I think it is indeed short of meeting the applicable inclusion criteria. Lara 15:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Subject is of borderline notability. I lean towards probably notable however if he has asked to be removed... Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Not an easy decision to make. On the one hand, it does look like he passes WP:ACADEMIC. On the other hand, when you read further there really isn't any indication that his contributions have made significant impact. We need third party sources to show that these were infact significant contributions to physics. So, delete per nom. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that subject's wishes must be taken into consideration. However, this person does seem to meet the notability criteria, and the article is amply sourced. If he has a good reason for requesting deletion, if he feels the article is flawed in some way, I may reconsider.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  This section on the article's talk page details his concerns. Lara 20:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, my vote remains keep. His concerns are far too broad, sweeping and lacking in specificity. If he has a problem with the article, he should take the time to go point by point: "A is incorrect, it is really B. C is incorrect it is really D." He should do that with every single thing in the article that he says is incorrect. It's not our job to carry out detective work based upon vague assertions by the subject of the article.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  I hope you someday read your last sentence and see it in a different perspective than the one you wrote it from. Lara 22:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  Look, let's not be mysterious about this. Can you list the aspects of this article that are problematic? If this is a bum article I don't want to keep it, but I just can't favor deletion based on what he has stated.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Ok... if that is what this is about I don't see him say "remove my page" so if there isn't some new communication to that effect I may have to change my vote. As JohnnyB256 rightly points out he is notable - if weakly so. Simonm223 (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  The request for deletion is new and came through OTRS. Lara 20:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Unusual case... normally people want to tweak stuff written about them in their favor. If the guy doesn't want to be mentioned here, then cool. Article barely survived first AfD, I thought we were doing him a favor by tweaking and keeping. If he doesn't accept that favor then nuke it into oblivion. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The subject is notable enough to meet WP:GNG, mainly for his activities on the fringe. I would ordinarily give weight to a subject's request to be deleted when the subject is basically a private person who did not seek the notability on which his/her Wikipedia presence is predicated. LaViolette is certainly not shrinking from the public light as evidenced by his multiple appearances on Coast to Coast AM, which in my understanding is about as notable as radio gets when you're talking about fringe-y stuff. His complaints about the article (as reflected on the talk page) strike me as being more about tone (and a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies) than any substantial misstatements of fact-- except maybe for his implication that we should ignore Science as unreliable (!). As JamesBWatson has pointed out on the talk page, while the subject may object to the use of the term "unorthodox" to describe his theories, that description seems entirely correct. On the other hand I do grok Seb az86556's sentiment, which is why I'm currently "weak" on this. If there is anything more to his OTRS request, it would certainly be helpful to know.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  There email is quite detailed, though I can't divulge the contents of it (I'll request his permission for that); however, his concerns are understandable and his notability is shaky. Lara 22:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not meet WP:PROF. His paper predicting the "high intensity volleys of cosmic ray[s]" has been cited 6 times only. If it were really important, it would have been cited more than that since 1987. The rest nothing special. Perhaps notable as an author (seven books), but rest of it is not. Hence delete. Especially when considering the potential BLP problems. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Pretty marginal notability.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- LaViolette's request for deletion is seriously undercut by his post on the article talk page, where it is clear that he is perfectly happy to be the subject of a wikipedia article -- as long as it says what he wants it to say. I'm holding off on a "vote" for now, but I'm not convinced by the premise of this afd as presented. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)