Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boyd Bushman


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Note I apologize for not including a more detailed closing rationale, which I should have done given the contentiousness of the debate. As per request at the DRV, I am adding the following rationale: The debate has clearly established that Bushman existed and was a researcher with Lockheed with a number of patents to his name. While laudable, this in itself does not establish notability, just as publishing books does not make an author notable. What is needed are independent sources about Bushman's accomplishments and I do not really see those. As for the alien claims, some editors seem to be arguing that these claims are true, hence Bushman is notable. This is incorrect. Whether or not the claims are true or not is irrelevant here. What we need to establish notability is whether those claims have generated sustained and in-depth coverage in reliable sources and, again, that does not seem to be the case here. In sum, while taken together the "delete" !votes are solidly policy based, the "keep" !votes either use irrelevant arguments or fail to show sustained in-depth coverage. Therefore, although numerically there may not seem to be a consensus here, I remind the participants that AfD is not a vote and close this as delete. --Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Boyd Bushman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG. Biography has two sources, one is OS (a USPTO patent search for subject's name and inventions), the other is non-RS (a UFO conspiracy theory website}. This individual has recently been making the rounds on the UFO blogs as a "respected scientist" who made an alleged "death bed confession" in which he supposedly claimed knowledge of time-traveling extraterrestrials. see:, etc. Many of these blogs, in fact, cite WP as a source for claims like he invented the Stinger missile and WP, in turn, cites the blogs. This article had a good run - now it's time for it to say goodnight. BlueSalix (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 30.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 05:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: The man existed ( birth cert. and obit. plus 1999 documentary is proof of him and his likeness ). Regarding 'employment,' perhaps he was an independent contractor as many sensitive contributions for such companies are.  The sources from the opinion websites ( like UFO discussion websites ) do not have to be added, the patent resources are enough.  However, the sources from 'news' outlets DO NEED factual support to effort a real defeat to Boyd's claims.  Otherwise, we are following 'news' based on hearsay and opinion without having facts and cited sources leading to clarity and an objective judgment of the matter at hand.  Simply because several 'news' sources repeat the same dissenting opinion doesn't make their objection true.  Facts lead to truth.  We have yet to see facts contradict Boyd's claims.  — Precedinuuug unsigned comment added by HafizHanif (talk • contribs) 22:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Article clearly needs improvement, also the patent section seems excesive and current sources are insuficient, but a quick search revealed many possible RS hits, for example: 1, 2. Also in other languages 3.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Metro, the South Wales Evening Gazette, etc., are part of the Daily Mail media group which has been determined numerous times to be non-RS tabloids and the stories you've linked are sourced to the original Daily Mail report. As for "eluniversal.com.co" ... I've never heard of it. Have you? BlueSalix (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * El Universal (Cartagena) is a Colombian based newspaper, not a tabloid. The south Wales Evening Gazette seems to be written by a diferent author, but I admit that I did not know about their relationship to the Daily Mail media group.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Subject fails WP:PROF. A list of patents is insufficient to meet Wikipedia's requirements for a notable WP:BIO. As for the UFO claims, WP:REDFLAG applies, the claims need to be covered by multiple reliable sources, which is not the case. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC) I should add that this bio fails a major test of notability per WP:BLP1E since the individual was unremarkable until one event (a Youtube video) triggered some frivolous "silly season" reporting, per WP:SENSATION. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nick Cook is a past and current aerospace journalist at Jane's Defence Weekly. He states in his 2007 book “The Hunt for Zero Point” published by Crown Publishing Group:
 * “When I had first inquired about Trimble and RIAS at Lockheed Martin, my contacts there had recommended I interview a man who routinely talked about the kinds of things that had once been integral to the RIAS charter. A man who tended to talk about Nature, not science; a physicist who looked at things quite differently from other people. Boyd Bushman was a senior scientist for Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth Division, the part of the corporation that turned out F-16 and F-22 fighters for the U.S. Air Force. If you’re interested in antigravity, then talk to him, they’d said.”
 * https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0307419436
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=b97ahFqu_U4C&q=Boyd%20Bushman
 * Bushman discusses antigravity in this earlier video. He discusses his own experiments in 1995 with slowing the rate of fall of an object by attaching it to some powerful $5000 neodymium magnets. The magnets had a quarter inch hole in them and were bolted together such that the same pole faced each other. In other words they repelled each other, and were only held together by the bolt. This object was dropped from a height of 59 feet along with another object that did not have the magnets attached. The test was run 9 times if I am remembering correctly, and the witnesses verified that the object with the magnets hit the ground later than the object without the magnets attached. The witnesses did not know which object had the magnets in it.
 * Bushman also discusses this antigravity experiment (in less detail) in the 1999 Discovery Channel program "Billion Dollar Secret." See video. At a running time of 22:50 to 26:56 in the "Billion Dollar Secret," Boyd is interviewed and introduced as a senior scientist at Lockheed Martin and speaks briefly about the subject matter. Later in his comments (at 25:10) he mentions this experiment he did with opposing magnets regarding anti-gravity. Direct links to 22:50 and 25:10 in the video:
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLwDFcHtOQs&t=22m50s
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLwDFcHtOQs&t=25m10s --Timeshifter (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Although it certainly needs work, it was through this article that I was better able to determine the whole thing is a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce smyth (talk • contribs) 06:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: At this point the fact of notability is more important than the reason for notability. Darmot and gilad (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: As long as the problems with his story are pointed out. I point to these other hoaxer/suspected hoaxer articles as guides (20 pages into a Google search): Cedric Allingham, Noël Corbu, Melvin Dummar, Rick Dyer,  Maurice Flitcroft, Paul Freeman (cryptozoologist), Alicia Esteve Head, Marvin Hewitt, Barry Larkin (prankster), Oswald LeWinter, Lying Jim Townsend, Alan Mcilwraith, Karl Power, Rocky Ryan, Raymond L. Wallace, Wearside Jack. See also List of hoaxes. 5Q5 (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The credibility of the individual that is the subject of the article is not the same as the notability of the article, as per Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. There is nothing wrong with the sourcing of the article, so I am not in favor of its removal. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Article subject's notability is in question; I see little beyond tacit references to YouTube. Icarus of old (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep He is getting ample coverage in reliable sources, thus passing the WP:GNG just fine.  D r e a m Focus  04:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Descended and others. Needs obvious work but it passes WP:GNG. --WGFinley (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia can't hope to be a complete list of every random unsubstantiable claim made by every random YouTube video. A few days of minor media attention that will soon be forgotten does not count as notability. 85.210.162.38 (talk) 23:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep.  death, Boyd B. Bushman Patents Recorded, total 29, sources verify employment data. I don't know how to format this right but the man existed, appears to have had a noteworthy career and is worthy of inclusion. Let the chips fall where they may on his statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.42.228.33 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not use citizen journalism and user-created content sites like blogs, or Find-a-Grave. Please see WP:RS for more details on what are acceptable sources. BlueSalix (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. The media will print anything if you pay them enough.  No evidence this guy exists other than in the fevered imagination of the foolish.  Merge anything relevant to a list of hoaxers.  This is Wikipedia not Hoaxapedia. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Concerning WP:GNG. He is real (birth certificate in Arizona), and obituary with info on funeral service location in Tucson, Arizona. He did work at Lockheed. 34 patents via google patent search. All but one mention Lockheed:
 * https://www.google.com/search?tbm=pts&q=ininventor:boyd+ininventor:bushman - and he is notable beyond that. Currently, 14,600 results in this Google News phrase search for "Boyd Bushman".
 * https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22boyd+bushman%22 - some of them are reliable sources. As for what people think his claims are: I certainly don't trust what is in many articles online. They contradict each other about what he said. That is one reason why primary sources are sometimes allowed on Wikipedia. For example; to verify what he actually said. I have only read a little online, and heard something on the radio. I haven't seen any of the videos, and so I don't even know for sure what he claimed. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A patent is not proof of employment. I can patent something tomorrow and make Lockheed Martin the assignee, even without Lockheed Martin's permission. If we have such a hard time finding proof of someone's employment that we have to dig through patent applications (which is Original Research), there's something seriously amiss. BlueSalix (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition, his funeral home obituary says: "Bushman's career spanned over forty years and included work with defense contractors Hughes Aircraft, General Dynamics, Texas Instruments, and Lockheed Martin. Some of his accomplishments included being on the development team of the Stinger Missile, the F16 Fighter, as well as many other advanced weapons and propulsion systems. At the time of his retirement in 2000, Bushman had 28 patents in his name, many of which contained classified technologies." More detailed info from other references is needed so that WP:NPOV is met.
 * From the site hosting the obit: "Owens Livingston Mortuary does not control this third-party Content...Owens Livingston Mortuary does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content, and Owens Livingston Mortuary makes no representations or warranties regarding any information or opinions posted to or otherwise included on or transmitted through the web site." - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * More references are needed. I assume his family can help verify his employment history. Maybe they have been interviewed by reliable sources that have followed the trail further. And I highly doubt most families would allow a completely bogus obituary at the funeral home site of a loved one. So it is a good starting point for finding further references. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Why is this so difficult? The individual is known for WP:ONEEVENT, the release of a YouTube video, and that event fails the guidelines at WP:EVENT. - Location (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of hoaxes. There is WP:RECENTISM going on here. The people !voting "keep" are arguing from the basis of WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:ILIKEIT. The claim that there is reliable source coverage is a bit of a red herring as I have not seen any in-depth independent sources that we would look for in order to establish a WP:FRIND status of notability for this WP:FRINGEBLP. Note that the debunking websites which discuss him do so in such an off-handed way that it's probably fine to list this in a List of hoaxes compendium and, if this story gets bigger, we can always WP:CFORK in the appropriate way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk • contribs)

The author's inability to substantiate the identity of Boyd Bushman's does not equal hoax. Engineers/scientist working black programs typically do not have public personas unless unavoidable or necessary. "Searching" or "Googling" the Internet would not necessary be the end all to verifying someone's identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grigsbyt (talk • contribs) 03:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC) 
 * Delete. The entire context of the article is speculative.  The YouTube.com interviews are obviously real contrary to the claim that the person is actually a mannequin or dummy mockup.  There is a real person making these claims and appearing on camera.
 * Keep without prejudice Rushing to delete this seven-year-old article at its height of popularity is absurd. There is no deadline; I'd suggest we wait a month or two until the article's daily views drop below a thousand and then reopen the discussion. Iaritmioawp (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability in RS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 86.153.124.228 (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 7.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 20:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The man existed ( birth cert. and obit. plus 1999 documentary is proof of him and his likeness ). Regarding 'employment,' he was most likely an independent contractor. The sources from the opinion websites ( like UFO discussion websites ) do not have to be added, the patent resources and 1999 doc are enough for starters.  Does anyone realize the 'news' outlets DO NOT have evidence to support the doll theory?  They are simply running with an idea without proof of such a doll ever being on the market.  What kind of journalism is that?Simply because several 'news' sources repeat the same dissenting opinion without proper sources doesn't make their objection true. Facts lead to truth.  We have yet to see one fact contradict Boyd's claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ HafizHanif (talk • contribs) 04:02, 8 November 2014
 * Also, the doll photos do not exactly match the dead alien photos that Bushman was passing on. The Bushman photos are from various angles and show features that are not on any of the doll photos I have seen so far. Most importantly, the whole discussion about the dead alien photos is irrelevant in the sense that Bushman does not publicly claim he has personally seen the dead or live aliens. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of hoaxes. Per WP:BLP1E. He was never noticed or publicized until the hoaxalicious 2014 Youtube video, since taken down at the demand of some supposed copyright holder. Reliable sources have not been supplied so far to establish that he was a prominent scientist at a major company. It seems clear that a Boyd B. Bushman existed, born 20 July 1936 in Arizona, the son of Mitchell Smith Bushman and Glenda Porter Bushman. How would hoaxers have inserted him and his parents and siblings in the 1940 census for Show Low, Arizona? I also found him in the 1956 and 1960 yearbooks for Brigham Young University, and in telephone directories from 1994 through 2002 for Lewisville, Texas, all in databases at Ancestry.com. It is also dubious that a funeral home would publish phony details of his funeral. None of this makes him notable. No newspaper articles, journal articles, or book references have been found other than for the 2014 Youtube video, except for the supposed 1999 video (a barren entry at IMDB, which is not a reliable source). (added: a few fringe sources at Google Scholar, in the UFOlogy, antigravity, and zeropoint energy ream mention him a having been  a scientist at Lockheed, as far back as 2002. ) The tabloid publications talking about the Youtube video are not reliable sources.  If he secured numerous patents and assigned them to Lockheed, then it is high plausible he worked there at some time in some capacity, as an employee or contractor, in the years the patents were issued. 99.99% of those who worked in some capacity at Lockheed or his other claimed employers  are nonnotable, and neither are most persons securing patents notable.  The 2014 video (see Snopes' discussion) has sufficient coverage to justify including it in a list of hoaxes, and a redirect is preferable to having people repeatedly create articles about him and his absurd claims.  Edison (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the valuable background info on him. Some links would be nice. As for whether he is hoaxing, I personally don't believe so. I finally skimmed the 2014 video. Numerous other credible scientists, military officers, government officials, and other insiders have come forward publicly saying similar things. For example; see Disclosure Project. Some have pages on Wikipedia. So the hoax argument is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The 2014 video is still in numerous places on Youtube. There are other videos by him on Youtube besides that one. He looks the same in each one, because he is real. We have his photo in the funeral home obituary too. We have established that he is real, and did work for Lockheed in some way. The copyright claim could well be bogus for the 2014 video. And since there are thousands of results for "Boyd Bushman" in Google News he is notable. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - this has zero reliable sources, so he fails WP:GNG. Existence (or not) is not notability. He seems to have been a grunt worker at Lockheed. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Becky Sayles (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.