Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Loughan


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Max Loughan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Support for Deletion This page purports to espouse the successes and scientific discoveries of "Max Loughan". Aside from being a deviation of scientific communication curiosity, Max Loughan is being portrayed as some nuanced, original thinker and scientist. Simply regurgitating the ideas of other scholars into a slightly more masticated form does not a scientist maketh. His YouTube videos do not have any empirical scientific value. The off-camera 'father' (assumed actor) offering what is seemingly overly fawning adulation for "complicated theory that no one except for you [Max] will understand," forces us to surmise that this voice is not impartial nor an objective anchor of scientific relevance. Add in also that there have been no significantly documented accomplishments, nor have there been consistent accounts of his progress. I assert that this article should be deleted as this person has yet to establish relevance under the Wikipedia standards. Ventric (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Edited for additional clarity. Ventric (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Additional Support for Deletion References 18-20 are either unconfirmed, unresponsive, or subjective at best. Ventric (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Original Editor Blocked Indefinitely The original editor who added the page User:Akrumoftruth was blocked indefinitely for infractions to the standards of Wikipedia. Ventric (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 03:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 03:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 03:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Not seeing a lot here I would call in depth coverage. Seems all a but unnotable.Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Many low-quality sources that all copy each other do not in-depth coverage make. And enrolling in EdX is not a marker of notability. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. No legitimate WP:RS, except for local TV and maybe silly news, i.e. basic WP:DOGBITESMAN type coverage which takes Loughan's claims at face value. I did see this, but turns out it's a reader blog legally disclaimed by Inc. magazine. (On a side note, a young person who successfully bamboozled lots of adults by misrepresenting the small amount of current in the audio output of a crystal radio set as a miraculous "free energy" discovery could be notable enough, provided reliable sources cover that aspect sometime in the future). - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * delete and salt This is shaping up as a repeat of the Jacob Barnett case, except that things haven't advanced far enough to show who is behind pushing a minor forward as the face of what smells of a free energy scam. Even ignoring the poor quality of the sourcing, WP:BLP of a not-actually-a-prodigy underaged kid should be reason enough to delete this and bury it in a salt mine. Mangoe (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, basically per the Sagan standard: all of the notability is tied up in his supposed free energy woo thing, which "purportedly harvests radio waves from the atmosphere and converts them to a direct current which can be used to power small electrical devices like LED lights". Just imagine, if you hooked it to a speaker rather than an LED you could have invented the radio receiver...120 years too late. Almost all the sources for this are junk web sites and the exception, KTVN, appears to be a local TV news interview by people of no technical expertise. The remaining sources do not convey notability. The fact that the subject is a minor and should eventually be embarrassed by this incident only adds to the reasons for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This is sort of a repeat of the Jacob Barnett case, but he has not gotten any coverage in major news shows, a book published on him, findings of psychologists, is too old now to make a big splash by going to college and taking "college courses online at 14" is just not that unusual. I knew at least two people when I was at BYU who had enrolled there at age 15, and these days many universities and community colleges have quite extensive programs for high schools students to be involved in dual enrollment. Beyond this, at least in theory Advanced Placement courses are meant to be a college level (weather or not they always are is another question), and while most people taking them are junior and seniors, I took one of only two high school AP classes as a sophmore. Loughan is not at all notable at present, and we definately should not expose a minor to the type of ridicule this article would expose him to if his claims ever are evaluated by people who have are more incredulous than are at times much too naive on matters of math and science run-of-the mill journalists. In fact, I hesitate to use that word for some TV news people who seem to lack any of the needed discretion, but considering the type of hoaxes that have also been perpetrated on print journalists in a wide array of subjects, I think there is a need for more skepticism towards the claims of other people in general, although I general oppose synicism, and am a strong deliever in the need for faith. I just do not think people are wise when they put their faith too quickly in their fellow men, espcially when it is done in a way primarily designed to further narratives they construct primarily by ignoring reality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2017 (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.