Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Sydney J. UK Optometrist/Researcher/Inventor: Introduced Cardioretinometry December 2002.

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. As for the rewrite, there doesn't seem to be sufficient consensus to delete it (although it's close and some votes are ambiguous), so kept for now. Next time could we please not merge VfDs on completely different articles? Thanks. JYolkowski // talk 22:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Bush Sydney J. UK Optometrist/Researcher/Inventor: Introduced Cardioretinometry December 2002.

 * Please note the existence of a complete rewrite at Sydney J. Bush, which is under the umbrella of this deletion discussion.

Delete, vanity. Near duplicate at Sydney J Bush.. UK Optometrist/inventor/researcher --IByte 00:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -- BD2412 talk 01:06, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete non-notable bio. JDoorjam 01:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I note Uncle G's re-write, discussed below, and clarify that my vote is for the unworkably-long-titled article in the heading of this VfD. I abstain from voting on the revised Sydney J. Bush discussion. -- BD2412 talk 13:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; Screaming vanity | Celcius 01:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment; I maintain that Bush Sydney J. UK Optometrist/Researcher/Inventor: Introduced Cardioretinometry December 2002. should be deleted for more reasons than I can count - it's horribly biased, postulating and very vain. Uncle G's rewrite of Sydney J. Bush has come out alright though and should be kept.
 * Speedy delete. nn and vanity. ManoaChild 01:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete the article with the long title. The rewrite has merit, and I need more time to evaluate it. I applaud Uncle G's efforts; however, I wish that Uncle G had not placed the new article under this VfD, since the articles are so different. ManoaChild 20:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Extend delete to cover rewritten article. Unable to independantly confirm notability.  Rewritten article, while much improved, consists primarily of a list of letters written, which is not notable (fails average professor test). ManoaChild 20:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: As above, so below. Geogre 01:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment and additional vote: Uncle G's separate article is only tangentially related to the issues here, so I have to vote on it separately.  The fact that the fellow isn't spoken of or his technique much used/discussed is what makes me argue for delete on that.  Mind you, cardioretinometry is back.  Folks need to watch out for deleted things mysteriously reappearing. Geogre 13:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The article is gone now. There is an article there, but it is only a place-holder that says that the actual article is deleted. ManoaChild 20:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As much as I am in favor of deleting vanity cranks, this one is a bit harder as we still seem to have the article on cardioretinometry. As long as that article persists there ought to be an article on its inventor.  Obviously this existing article needs to be torn to shreds and rewritten but it's anomalous to have the "medical" procedure without the "medico" who invented it. Hold-the-nose keep See below -EDM 02:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * cardioretinometry is gone, this should go with it. Average Earthman 09:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Since cardioretinometry is gone, changing vote on this to delete. As for Sydney J. Bush, thank you very much Uncle G, that was above and beyond and the deck chairs are really nicely arranged now, but delete that as well as crank.  Writers of letters to journals and organizations do not achieve notability by virtue of that activity, and the Freemasonry clinches it. -EDM 13:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Duplicate with very crappy title. - Mgm|(talk) 07:43, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've done a complete rewrite from scratch at Sydney J. Bush. It wasn't based on this article, which is entirely autobiographical, having been created by User:Sydney J Bush.  There is no need to retain Bush Sydney J. UK Optometrist/Researcher/Inventor: Introduced Cardioretinometry December 2002., and it should be Deleted as the self-promoting, biased, egregiously mis-titled, autobiographical abomination that it is. However, I have brought Sydney J. Bush under the umbrella of this discussion.  Other people don't write much about this person.  Research mainly brought up self-publicity. For the latter article, Weak Keep. Uncle G 11:22:50, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
 * Delete I applaud Uncle G's efforts, but this doctor appears to be pretty much textbook non-notable. He's got a theory, and he's given his examination style a name. That's good, and perhaps one day, we'll have a big article about how he was published and everyone follows his theory of scurvy. Until that happens, it's non-encyclopedic. -Harmil 12:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say "First optometrist to make available inexpensive, cosmetically acceptable, invisible prism segment bifocal spectacle lenses (not available in the USA at present) for the relief of convergence insufficiency." is a fair claim at notability, but maybe that's because I worked with an opticien's shop. - Mgm|(talk) 12:57, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * "It is said that his birth was marked by earthquakes, tidal waves, tornadoes, firestorms, the explosion of three neighbouring stars, and, shortly afterwards, by the issuing of over six and three quarter million writs for damages from all of the major landowners in his Galactic sector. However, the only person by whom this is said is Beeblebrox himself, and there are several possible theories to explain this." — Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Fit The Ninth. I didn't find anything at all that mentioned the claim that you mention, or the claims to holding patents. The only source for these claims is User:Sydney J Bush, writing his autobiography in Wikipedia. See the rewrite for the stuff that I did find. Uncle G 13:17:16, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
 * Obviously, delete the horrible-title one and its twin firmly and quickly. For Uncle G's version, while it's very nice to see verbs in the sentences and a good structure, its virtues only make it clearer why "other people don't write much about this person", so delete (a little less firmly) that one, too. Bishonen | talk 13:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment/query: if the invention of cardioretinometry is notable, why has the article been deleted? Similarly, are his invisible prism segment bifocal spectacle lenses notable enough to discuss in corrective lenses?  If not, I don't believe we can call him notable.  Delete, though admittedly not as speedy as before. JDoorjam 13:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Because it was original research, and admitted original research, too. See Votes for deletion/Cardioretinometry where Bush says so outright, in as many words.  It's not published in peer-reviewed journals, and the only source for it is the inventor himself. Uncle G 13:32:20, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
 * Did I mention that, in addition to vanity, it is also original research? Still delete. This applies to all articles in this series related to cardioretinometry or its inventor. --IByte 16:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * cardioretinometry certainly was original research. And the parts of the two autobiographies by User:Sydney J Bush that also presented that theory directly, were too.  But to be original research as a biography, Sydney J. Bush would have to have presented a novel interpretation of the biography, or have been primary source material.  With no arguments that this is a novel interpretation, and cited sources for practically every individual sentence in the article, I suggest that this is not so.  As it is a biography article: rather than addressing it as if it were about the theory propounded by the person, which it is not, it's best addressed on the grounds of whether the person, that it is about, satisfies the Criteria for inclusion of biographies, as Geogre, MacGyverMagic, EDM, Harmil, JDoorjam, and Bishonen have done above, discussing such things as whether people have written about this person and what this person's recognized achievements have been. Uncle G 18:10:45, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
 * Vanity, then. This is why I'm usually not fond of merging VfDs for related articles, because the reasonings may differ. Building a bridge from one reasoning to the next, though, I don't think coming up with a theory that fails WP:NOR gets you sufficient notability to pass WP:BIO. --IByte 18:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Groups of articles nominated together are sometimes troublesome in that regard, yes. But this wasn't a group of articles, just a rewrite done as the discussion progressed, a rewrite to replace an autobiography with a biography, about the same subject.  That your opinion about a rewrite may differ from your opinion of the original is the idea. &#9786;  Moreover: It's better to bring rewrites created as new articles under the same umbrella than not to.  Uncle G 19:47:53, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your efforts, but I don't think the subject matter has sufficient merit for WP. --IByte 20:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The re-write just scrapes through in my opinion so a weak keep for that, delete the other. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 20:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all of them. --Carnildo 22:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete both, he wrote letters to the [BMJ] - if he'd been asked for an article I might have been convinced. But having a letter published in a journal is nn. --Doc (?) 09:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable, vanity, advertising. From this point on, any similar articles should be speedied as re-creations of material voted for deletion even if not absolutely identical in content. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep something about this guy? I did a search of the U.S. patent database and found patent number 4,124,282 issued to one Sydney J. Bush in 1978 for "ophthalmic lenses" to be used for the unobtrusive correction of anisometropia. Crypticfirefly 04:37, 26 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.