Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elliot McGucken


 * 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   no consensus. X clamation point  16:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Elliot McGucken

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete. Not notable; appears to have been written by subject himself; subject is a physics crackpot on other forums. All the outside links are to sites controlled by Elliot McGucken except the patent link Readams (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is a link to a quote in the NY Times, but it's not about the physics crackpottery that makes up most of the article. No real indication of serious and encyclopedic notability. eaolson (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable and most likely written by the subject himself. To correct the sock puppet below, Foundational Questions institute did not "award" Elliot McGucken his own forum, but rather took his posts about his MDT and sectioned them off so they'd not continue to clog other discussion. Iainuki (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

User Readams/Ianuki seems to have a personal vendetta against McGucken, beginning with the action to delete McGucken's article and engaging in ad hominem attacks (against wikipedia rules) by calling McGucken a crackpot. McGucken has a Ph.D. in physics, high praise from prominent theoretical physicists and professional peers, and an award-winning dissertation from a prestigious institution. On Readam's bio it says he quit grad school, and yet he has the audacity to call McGucken a crackpot while hiding beyond an anonymous username. Is Readam the same person as Iainuki? Can IP addresses be checked? Readam/Ianuki consitently ignore the overabundance (50+) of reputable sources/references consiting of major print publications and univeristy websites supporting McGucken's original work, focusing on ad hominem, mean-spirited, and unfounded attacks.

Edit physics theory down but keep. Searched & retina phd dissertation research can be found on nsf, popular science website, etc. Other items can be foind at sxsw, new york times, wall street journal, businessweek.com, and other sites. Someone should edit physics theory down/delete physics and add refs tO other items. Keep parts with solid references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.173.67.85 (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Added a plethora of references from reputable sources including the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Popular Science, The National Science Foundation's Frontiers Mag., IEEE publications, Business Week, the Triangle Business Journal, The Charlotte Business Journal, and The Daily Tar Heel. Added references from major research institutions including UNC Chapel Hill and North Carolina State Univeristy.  Added references from oscom.org--International not-for-profit organisation dedicated to open source Content Management.  Perhaps the physics section needs to be shortened/wait for any publications of theory to appear in more formal publications, but the rest of the article is strongly supported by dozens of reputable sources (NYT/WSJ/IEEE/BW/UNC/NCSU) and there are more to be added.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.194.198 (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Added text from a glowing endorsement form the famous theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler found at the fqxi.org site in the form of a Princteon recommendation for grad school and news pertaining to McGucken's award-winning artificial retina device which appeared at North Carolina State University and in the Wall Street Journal. These are extremely solid accomplishments backed by major sources/figures.  Also noted that the Foundational Questions institute awarded McGucken his own forum for his theory and provided a link to the UNC Chapel Hill website listing McGucken's teaching award in physics.  Definitely notable/diverse array of accomplishments.  Now an extremely well-sourced and referenced article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.173.238 (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. There seems to be some possible sockpuppetry going on here? Anonymous user suddenly shows up and adds fawning statements about McGucken.  Both from same anonymouse IP --Readams (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Someone stated that there were not enough references and links to outside articles/sources. References and links were thus added to a multitude of prestigious, well-known sources.  The references now include The New York Times (for jollyroger.com and arts entrepreneurship), the Wall Street Journal (for poetry and award-winning artificial retina chipset physics Ph.D. dissertation and jollyroger.com), Businessweek (artificial retina chipset physics Ph.D. dissertation and articles mentioning/pertaining to Arts Entrepreneurship), North Carolina State Univeristy (award-winnning artificial retina chipset physics Ph.D. dissertation), UNC Chapel Hill (list of teaching-award recipients/McGucken's physics teaching award), and text straight from a letter of recommendation from the famous theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler at the Foundational Questions Institute site.  A reference from Popular Science was added which reports on McGucken's retina research, along with references from the National Science Foundation's Frontiers Magazine and IEEE publications, all related to McGucken's research/award-winning Ph.D. dissertation.   Articles from the Triangle Business Journal and Charlotte Business Journal are referenced, as well as articles from Cincom and an article at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation's website from their 2007 Thoughtbook print publication.  References from oscom.org--International not-for-profit organisation dedicated to open source Content Management--are now included.  Various univeristy websites/news-centers/newspapers are included referencing McGucken's work.  Articles on McGucken's work from the Daily Tar Heel, Raleigh News and Observer, and Charlotte Observer are referenced.  An interview with the Arts Entreprenuership Educator's network is referenced along with articles from the Carolina Entreprenuerial Initiative at UNC Chapel Hill and the Kenan Institute regarding McGucken's novel research and class in the realm of arts entreprneurship & technology.  McGucken's ITCONVERSATIONS interview is referenced, noting that it has become an archive favorite on the internet's original podcast network.  The Wall Street titan John C. Bogle's Enough: True Measures of Money, Business, and Life was referenced as Bogle salutes McGucken's work. And a new reference from Wake Forest Univeristy was just added: http://www.wfu.edu/creativity/projects_artsentrepreneur.htm "Elliot McGucken, trend setter in ‘artistic entrepreneurship’ and entrepreneurial applications with new internet technologies." More references exist. All of these are reputable sources and they all enhance the notable article and diverse array of accomplishments.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.194.198 (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Solid, extremely well-sourced article.
 * Comment. Another anonymous IP address likely to be a second sock puppet. The article was clearly written almost entirely by the subject, who apparently considers himself quite notable. --Readams (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

User Readams seems to have a personal vendetta against McGucken, beginning with the action to delete McGucken's article and engaging in ad hominem attacks (against wikipedia rules) by calling McGucken a crackpot. Is Readam the same person as Iainuki? Can IP addresses be checked? Readam consitently ignores the overabundance of reputable sources supporting McGucken's work, focusing on ad hominem, mean-spirited, and unfounded attacks.

The article is now well referenced and extremely well sourced. The majority of words in the article come from/are linked to independent and prominent sources including the new York times, the wall street journal, business week mag., popular science mag, IEEE engineering publications/journals, crc press, and major university's websites and newspapers. Words of support from the famous theoretical physicist john archibald wheeler are also included. Publications including the Raleigh news and observer, the triangle business journal, the charlotte observer, and the charlotte business journal are referenced as well as wall street giant john c. Bogle's book enough: true measures of money, business, and life, where mcgucken's novel class the hero's journey inarts entrepreneurship and technology is saluted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.135.84.209 (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Another comment written in McGucken's style. I don't think it would be too unreasonable for him to log in and sign his comments, but then he probably realizes Wikipedia has policies against conflicts of interest.  The claim that MDT was granted its own forum on fqxi.org is intentionally misleading.  The forum was created to have a place to move his constant long-winded crackpottery where it was clogging up discussions.  Here's what the forum admin said when the forum was created:
 * Dr. E, Congratulations! Your posts have accumulated enough mass that they have collapsed into their own separate universe. That is, your posts that are predominantly about your MDT theory have been moved to their own thread, here. Readers are welcome to find them there and discus them in whatever depth they choose. Please confine future postings about MDT to that forum rather than others such as this one to which it is not directly relevant.

This is just the example where I happen to know something about the "reference" McGucken provided. There is good reason to suspect based on this example that the rest of this self-promotion has a similar level of scholarship. --Readams (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes--MDT was given its own forum and it is now displayed prominently on the front and center of the fqxi community page: http://www.fqxi.org/community, where it has been the #1 most active forum since its inclusion in March 09: "FORUM UPDATES High Energy Physics Dr. E's MDT Theory  By DR. E (THE REAL MCCOY)  Thanks Anthony!Of course I thank fqxi for the forum and the time and effort--and even the stated intent--but I gotta call 'em as I see 'em." New ideas take their time to be accepted by the physics community, and MDT's progress has been tremendous.

Above user Readams again engages in his nasty, mean-spirited, ad-hominem campaign against McGucken behind a mask of anominity. All we know about user readams is that he dropped out of grad school, and somehow user Readms thinks that this makes him a greater expert on physics and physicists than fqxi and the famous theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium.jpg : "“More intellectual curiosity, versatility and yen for physics than Elliot McGucken’s I have never seen in any senior or graduate student. . . Originality, powerful motivation, and a can-do spirit make me think that McGucken is a top bet for graduate school in physics. . . I say this on the basis of close contacts with him over the past year and a half. . . I gave him as an independent task to figure out the time factor in the standard Schwarzchild expression around a sphericallysymmetric center of attraction. I gave him the proofs of my new general-audience, calculus-free book on general relativity, A Journey Into Gravity and Space Time. There the space part of the Schwarzchild geometric is worked out by purely geometric methods. “Can you, by poor-man’s reasoning, derive what I never have, the time part?” He could and did, and wrote it all up in a beautifully clear account. . . .his second junior paper. . .entitled Within a Context, was done with another advisor, and dealt with an entirely different part of physics, the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky experiment and delayed choice experiments in general. . . this paper was so outstanding. . . I am absolutely delighted that this semester McGucken is doing a project with the cyclotron group on time reversal asymmetry. Electronics, machine-shop work and making equipment function are things in which he now revels. But he revels in Shakespeare, too. Acting the part of Prospero in the Tempest. . ." --http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium.jpg

Above, in the very first post, user Readams begins his whole campaign to remove Mcgucken's extremely well-sourced and notable article by calling McGucken a "crackpot. (user Readams violates wikipedia's rules which forbid ad-hominem, libellious attacks. user Readams also violates wikipedia's spirit, which stands against nastiness and mean-spiritedness form behind masks of anominity) user Readams/Iainuki launches his mean-spirited campaign with "Not notable; appears to have been written by subject himself; subject is a physics crackpot on other forums. All the outside links are to sites controlled by Elliot McGucken except the patent link Readams (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)" According to user Readams, publications including The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Popular Science, Business Week, CRC Press are not notable publications and are all contolled by mcgucken.  According to user Readams, who is inspired by some sort of personal vendetta against mcgucken, the raleigh news and observer, the triangle business journal, electronics weekly, the charlotte business jounral, and the charlotte news and observer are not reputable sources.    According to user Readams, the famous theortical physicist John Archibald Wheeler's words have no import and are not notable nor trustworthy.  User Readams hatred for McGucken is blinding him and shaping his entire view of reality.  According to user Readams world-class, peer-reviewed research and an award-winning dissertation (global Merrill Lynch Innovations Awards) on an artificial retina for the blind which appears in publications including Popular Science, Business Week, CRC Press, IEEE Engineering publications, is not at all notable.

The user Readams states "There is good reason to suspect based on this example that the rest of this self-promotion has a similar level of scholarship." Blinded by his personal vendetta and crusade against McGucken, user Readams ignores the existence of and denies the reputability of references and links that were thus added to a multitude of prestigious, well-known sources, after user Readams complained there were not enough references during the initiation of his personal campaign against McGucken's article. The references now include The New York Times (for jollyroger.com and arts entrepreneurship), the Wall Street Journal (for poetry and award-winning artificial retina chipset physics Ph.D. dissertation and jollyroger.com), Businessweek (artificial retina chipset physics Ph.D. dissertation and articles mentioning/pertaining to Arts Entrepreneurship), North Carolina State Univeristy (award-winnning artificial retina chipset physics Ph.D. dissertation), UNC Chapel Hill (list of teaching-award recipients/McGucken's physics teaching award), and text straight from a letter of recommendation from the famous theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler at the Foundational Questions Institute site. A reference from Popular Science was added which reports on McGucken's retina research, along with references from the National Science Foundation's Frontiers Magazine and IEEE publications, all related to McGucken's research/award-winning Ph.D. dissertation. Articles from the Triangle Business Journal and Charlotte Business Journal are referenced, as well as articles from Cincom and an article at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation's website from their 2007 Thoughtbook print publication. References from oscom.org--International not-for-profit organisation dedicated to open source Content Management--are now included. Various univeristy websites/news-centers/newspapers are included referencing McGucken's work. Articles on McGucken's work from the Daily Tar Heel, Raleigh News and Observer, and Charlotte Observer are referenced. An interview with the Arts Entreprenuership Educator's network is referenced along with articles from the Carolina Entreprenuerial Initiative at UNC Chapel Hill and the Kenan Institute regarding McGucken's novel research and class in the realm of arts entreprneurship & technology. McGucken's ITCONVERSATIONS interview is referenced, noting that it has become an archive favorite on the internet's original podcast network. The Wall Street titan John C. Bogle's Enough: True Measures of Money, Business, and Life was referenced as Bogle salutes McGucken's work. And a new reference from Wake Forest Univeristy was just added: http://www.wfu.edu/creativity/projects_artsentrepreneur.htm "Elliot McGucken, trend setter in ‘artistic entrepreneurship’ and entrepreneurial applications with new internet technologies." More references exist. All of these are reputable sources and they all enhance the notable article and diverse array of accomplishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.194.198 (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment OK I'm done arguing with sock puppets who just say the same thing over and over. All the references were added after the AfD entry was created; prior to that all references were to McGucken's pages, because the article was written by McGucken, and now is defended by McGucken.  MDT is entirely self-published and doesn't belong on wikipedia, period.  Shameless self-promotion does not notability make. This is the last comment I'll make here, so Dr. E feel free to post another massive diatribe which repeats everything you've already said as the last word. --Readams (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Note Readams/Iainuki--an anonymous sock puppet hiding behind anonymous usernames--constant use of the ad hominem-attacking words "diatribe" and "crackpot" and "Shameless self-promotion" and "sock puppet" while trying desperately to ignore, belittle, and refute McGucken's notable achievements that were reported on in independent, venerable publications including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Popular Science, Business Week, along with the words of famous theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler and a plethora and abundance of words taken from, quoted, and referenced in a wide-range of solid resources ranging from major research institutions and universities to prestigious research journals and presseses to globally-respected print publications all reporting on notable, novel research and achievements. Readams's personal crusade against McGucken and private vendetta must redefine The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Popular Science, Business Week, IEEE, and CRC Press as non-notable publications and award-winning research on an artifical retina that is helping people see as non-notable. Hopefully Readams/Iainuki finds a more constructive way to spend their time on furthering acheivements of their own, rather than trying to cut others down via anonymous, ad-hominem attacks and personal crusades/vendettas which are a waste of everyone's valuable time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.194.198 (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment incredible. Deal with the sockpuppetry please by having them blocked by an administrator.  The Conflict of Interest makes it impossible to see what is going on.  To establish notability, reliable third party references must deal with the subject in a non-trivial way.  Honestly at this point I can't tell what is going on with the article.  Mr. McGucken needs to immediately cease editing the article and place any suggested changes on the talk page. Drawn Some (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep and trim. There are two possible aspects of notability: the artificial retina, and the literature web sites. The NYT feature article on the web site is possibly enough to show it was notable in 1997, but there doesn't seem to be anything else reliable.    There is only one major article on the chipset, but scopus shows 127 citations. It  does not seem to have been commercially developed, and I am not sure it has actually led to anything, or whether its being cited as just one of the many experiments. I suspect the latter, or there would be later articles. I am not sure about Arts Entrepreneurship, for the   articles in NYT and BW    are not substantially about it primarily, & the other sources are minor. A familiar question by now: someone slightly less-than-notable in a range of things. Do we add them up, or expect notability is some one thing? DGG (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. But make it a stub with neutral language, as the current version of the article is totally out of proportion with the notability of the subject. The subject does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF, but this news coverage suggests to me that he meets WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2009 (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.