Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Press (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Reverted edits by Robert9673 (talk) to last version by Bongomatic |
→Howard Press: reluctant delete |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
It is worth noting that the "facts" assembled as synthesis can give inaccurate or one-sided impressions of the situation. For example, this article makes no mention of the fact that Press sued Forest, but lost at the summary judgement phase (see [http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=14nNAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22howard+press%22+tablet&q=%22howard+press%22#search_anchor this book]). Does that make the claims in this article wrong? Maybe, maybe not—but it certainly demonstrates why an encyclopedia is not the place for original research. <sup><small><font color="green">[[User talk:Bongomatic|Bongo]]</font></small></sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex;"><small><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Bongomatic|matic]]</font></small></sub> 00:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC) |
It is worth noting that the "facts" assembled as synthesis can give inaccurate or one-sided impressions of the situation. For example, this article makes no mention of the fact that Press sued Forest, but lost at the summary judgement phase (see [http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=14nNAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22howard+press%22+tablet&q=%22howard+press%22#search_anchor this book]). Does that make the claims in this article wrong? Maybe, maybe not—but it certainly demonstrates why an encyclopedia is not the place for original research. <sup><small><font color="green">[[User talk:Bongomatic|Bongo]]</font></small></sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex;"><small><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Bongomatic|matic]]</font></small></sub> 00:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC) |
||
* '''Delete''' There is plenty of assertion of notability, but unfortunately it is not borne out by the sources. Uniformly except the patent, the references presented support only ancillary points, leaving the main thrust of each paragraph as unsupported [[WP:original research|original research]]. References 13 and 15 are to the same article, which discusses Nitroglyn but not Press. |
|||
:Going by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Howard_Press&oldid=320317975 the version at time of AfD], the problems with this article may be summed up by examining the final two sentences. Reference 18 is an obituary of Lowey and makes no mention Press or any controversy. Gaping [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] flaws and [[WP:SYNTH|original synthesis]] are no reason to delete an article, but if synthesis and original research are intrinsic to the article due to an almost complete absence of mention in independent reliable sources, then no article on this topic is possible. |
|||
: This is a neat story, and I would like to see it kept iff it can be substantiated by sources covering Press himself rather than only events or facts tangential to the main topic of the article. - [[User talk:2over0|2/0]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/2over0|cont.]])</small> 07:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 07:33, 18 October 2009
AfDs for this article:
- Howard Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article constitutes original research and is doomed to that fate. Also, the notability of the subject is not demonstrated.
- The article cites no references that actually mention the subject other than one patent.
- The primary editor of the article is probably the single best person in the world to know of the existence of any secondary sources verifying the claims in the article—yet there are none.
- The thrust of the article is inference and interpretation of referenced facts, but the claims are only indirectly supported.
- Beyond the patent, none of the references other than directories even mentions the subject. Notability is not established.
If the main point of this article is ever published as fact in a reliable source, then (depending on the depth of coverage) the subject could be covered as notable and in an article that is not original research with reference to that source. Until then, this article cannot form part of any encyclopedia.
It is worth noting that the "facts" assembled as synthesis can give inaccurate or one-sided impressions of the situation. For example, this article makes no mention of the fact that Press sued Forest, but lost at the summary judgement phase (see this book). Does that make the claims in this article wrong? Maybe, maybe not—but it certainly demonstrates why an encyclopedia is not the place for original research. Bongomatic 00:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete There is plenty of assertion of notability, but unfortunately it is not borne out by the sources. Uniformly except the patent, the references presented support only ancillary points, leaving the main thrust of each paragraph as unsupported original research. References 13 and 15 are to the same article, which discusses Nitroglyn but not Press.
- Going by the version at time of AfD, the problems with this article may be summed up by examining the final two sentences. Reference 18 is an obituary of Lowey and makes no mention Press or any controversy. Gaping NPOV flaws and original synthesis are no reason to delete an article, but if synthesis and original research are intrinsic to the article due to an almost complete absence of mention in independent reliable sources, then no article on this topic is possible.
- This is a neat story, and I would like to see it kept iff it can be substantiated by sources covering Press himself rather than only events or facts tangential to the main topic of the article. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)