User talk:Vfrickey/Archives/2016/August

Disambiguation link notification for May 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Galantamine, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tabun and VX. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Help me! Article Ruggero Santilli really fails WP:ORGIND. What's the best way to delete it?
Please help me with the article on Ruggero Santilli, which I think should be deleted for lack of notability. The article began as an apparent WP:PROMOTION years ago, and several editors, including me, worked to solve some of the WP:NPOV issues it had.

However, on reflection, no good independent secondary sources exist to establish Santilli's notability, apart from a exchange of letters to a minor scientific journal. Santilli's only notable for four books printed by Springer Verlag on his obscure theories of physics and mathematics, and his proprietary invention "MagneGas". The Wikipedia article on him doesn't seem justified on this basis.

Likewise, every scientific publication referred to in support of Santilli's claim to notability is hosted on his own Web site. WP:ORGIND seems to make these useless to establish Santilli's notability in the absence of independent, reliable publications.

At the very least, the dead links need to be deleted, and I plan to do that. In fairness to Santilli and some of his critics, I'll also run a Wayback Machine search for documents in each dead link.

Disclosure of a potential WP:COI - because of prior editing activity on this article and comments on other Internet sites regarding dubious statements on the MSDS for Santilli's product MagneGas, I'm now described on the Internet by Santilli or some of his associates as "a former Wikipedia editor." Apparently that's intended as a pejorative.

But the current standards for notability in wikipedia seem to me to indicate that there's no independently-published reference which documents Santilli's claim to notability. If this article were run past reviewers now, it'd fail for lack of notability. What's the best way to delete it? Is deletion even an option?

loupgarous (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Follow the exact steps at WP:AFDHOW. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated! Thanks! loupgarous (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * No worries. WP:PING me if something goes horribly wrong or the templates don't seem to be working. Softlavender (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I borked the process by not noticing Ruggiero Santilli had already been nominated once for deletion, and didn't add "2nd nomination" to the edit summary. How do I unsnarl this?  loupgarous (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned it all up, I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks David -- I neglected to look for that myself. Anyway,, you'd do well to add to your nomination rationale that the article fails WP:ORGIND and why, especially since the previous AFD passed as having notability (although the AFD closed far too early). Softlavender (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * By the way, you haven't made a single edit to either the article or its talk page, so I'm confused when you say "several editors, including me, worked to solve some of the WP:NPOV issues it had". -- Softlavender (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that I edited this article a few years back, but I suppose I could be thinking of MagneGas which now redirects to Ruggiero Santilli. And I will in the nomination text, list WP:ORGIND and why it applies to this article, and WP:PROFRINGE as the other major reason the article should be deleted. I'll explain why there.  Thanks! loupgarous (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You didn't edit that article either . If you edited logged out or under another account, please don't do that in the future. Softlavender (talk) 02:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * David Eppstein and Softlavender Thank you both for your help! loupgarous (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * And thanks again for your help. I didn't agree with some of your statements, Softlavender (while WP:NOTABLE says 'notability is not temporary,' it also says the issue of notability can be revisited. Which is what we did). The arguments on both sides were reasonable, and I'm happy we did revisit the matter with those arguments having been made. loupgarous (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)