Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul LaViolette


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 20:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul LaViolette

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

Appears to fail our WP:PEOPLE criteria for notability, the article mentions the subjects "lack of popularity and obscurity" and says he is not mentioned by other scientists. Dougweller (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete  Although this is research of a kind that I find quite intriguing and would like to see presented within Wikipedia, this article unfortunately does not document the subject's notability, with a noted absence of reliable sources. __meco (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep In light of recently added sourcing and reworking of the article independent of its original creator I think a clearer picture has emerged of a scientist that, however fringe-oriented, has probably made the threshhold of notability in periods of his career that the article currently doesn't elaborate on sufficiently. __meco (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete  per meco's points. Notability needs to be established first and foremost, and this article fails to do that. --clpo13(talk) 09:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Revised article is better in terms of establishing some notability and providing sources. I'd say it could be improved greatly in time. --clpo13(talk) 19:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete  Notability questionable. Tone dubious. Seb az86556 (talk) 09:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep meco and I have tweaked the article and weeded out the completely dubious stuff. Maybe this can be worked into something suitable after all... Seb az86556 (talk) 12:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The article asserts that the subject is obscure, and the article lacks reliable sources. Clearly the subject fails WP:PROF and the label "scientist" in the lead has no verification. Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless reliable independent sources can be found (i.e. neither WP:SPS websites nor blogs). At the current state I've been unable to find any reliably sourced fact in the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability as fringe practioner is is not established. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Weak delete. As he is a fringe scientist WP:BIO and WP:FRINGE are probably more relevant than WP:PROF, which is aimed more at orthodox academics. There was a certain amount of media attention for the legal case that arose when LaViolette was fired from the Patent Office for his fringe beliefs:    etc. But these are almost completely unrelated to the content of the present article, and WP:BIO1E would apply to an article based only on these sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was looking into him as well. In addtion to the patent office matter, there's a long article in the Washington City Paper, but I don't know how reliable that is as a source. It should be enough to kill any 1E worries if it is reliable, though. - Bilby (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That article contains much information that certainly attests to his notability. In particular one quote indicates that it ought to be possible to find good reliable sources for his notability, i.e. "For a short, sweet time, LaViolette made headlines in newspapers and magazines around the world." However, this would be the mid 1970s so online searches may not yield much. __meco (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - after being rewritten there's enough to justify keeping, it is broad enough to avoid "one event" problems, and there's enough promise of other, older, sources to suggest that it can be reliably extended further. - Bilby (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There was mention of e.g. WP:FRINGE above, but this particular article describes him almost entirely in the context of mainstream science: "is an American scientist", "articles in various scientific journals..", "holds the patent for...", "was the first to predict that high intensity volleys of cosmic ray particles...", and so on. The cold fusion/USPTO incident is only mentioned peripherally, as David Eppstein has pointed out. These observations indicate that WP:PROF is, in fact, the proper test at the moment. LaViolette is indeed a scientist, having 12 publications according to WoS. (There are 5 additional hits representing abstracts, corrections, etc. Also, note that not all entries in his "list of journal publications" are actually journal publications.) One publication is cited 20 times, but it drops off quickly from there giving a final h-index of 5. This is way below the typical consensus pass on WP:PROF #1 of 10 to 15. WP:FRINGE cannot really be applied unless the article is first rewritten accordingly. Even then, the problem, as Eppstein again points out, is that nothing will be left except a single episode that won't pass WP:BIO1E. I'm afraid this person is not notable as either a scientist or a fringe practitioner. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC).
 * weak keep it might be fringe... but it seems to meet notability, 2 newspapers, one mention in science in google news....  don't think he would make it on publishing, but i think he meets general notability.--Buridan (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep? -- I am not seeing much in the way of mainstream news coverage or overall notability. However, he does have 6 books authored. Since editors were able to properly reference and verify the facts, I think it can and should be kept. Danski14(talk) 19:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Perhaps, but you're conveniently omitting comment on the significance of these 6 books. WorldCat does show 162 libraries hold the Big Bang book (not a particularly widespread holding), but the numbers seem to drop off quickly from there – all being apparently well below 100. The subquantum kinetics book is held by only 7 libraries! For comparison, the vanity-published book "Off the Wall" (which has been discussed here before) is held by 53 libraries. Please consider "6 books" in this context. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC).


 * Keep the improved article as meeting WP:GNG. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Question. Would you kindly elaborate on just exactly how you feel WP:GNG is satisfied? The above info strongly points to non-notability of his work, including books. All that seems to be left toward WP:GNG is a single article in a local paper and a mention in a short piece in Science on Tom Valone. Remaining sources all seem to be WP:PUFF. For example, the opening talks of a biography: "According to Coast to Coast AM host George Noory's biography of LaViolette...", but when you actually check the source, you find it's nothing more than 6 short sentences on the web page of a late-night radio show. The rest are mostly from an organization called the Starburst Foundation, of which the subject is evidently the director (so, not "Independent of the subject", as required by WP:GNG). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC).


 * The Washington City Paper is a small weekly 'alternative newspaper'. Dougweller (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:RS does not mandate that an RS need be of some minimum size or circulation. What it does require is a reliable publication process, authors regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand, and stresses that reliability of a source also depends on context. Are now stating that Washington City Paper does not meet RS? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is other good coverage as well - there's an article on him in New Scientist, but I don't want to add that until I've seen the full article, and the Washington City Paper refered to coverage of his work being extensive in the '70's, but that will take longer to track down than we have during an AfD, as it won't be online. Generally, and I know this wasn't directed at me, it seems that there's just enough to meet GNG between New Scientist, Washington City Paper and the various accounts of the patent office issue, and there's enough around to suggest that there is more print coverage which can be used later to build a more solid article. - Bilby (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The New Scientist article would be important and you should produce this ASAP if you feel this entry is worth keeping. (That is, a lot of people can check this very quickly, given the citation.) If it is a dedicated article on him, it would be a significant addition to the debate here, whereas the article in the City Paper is not. I don't think commentators are arguing on the reliability of sources (per MichaelQSchmidt's comment below), but rather on what level of notability these themselves confer cf. a brief mention in Time vs. long write-up in a local publication. The latter counts for little for the purposes of AfD, otherwise we would have articles on every last person who ever argued before city council, was awarded business-person of the year, or expounded on some fringe theory. I'm afraid the burden of proof rests on this – merely saying there's a New Scientist article and "enough around to suggest that there is more print coverage" doesn't weigh very much. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Cited sources do not have to be online, nor are they mandated to be available ASAP... just that they are available somehere if someone wishes to read them for themselves... libraries, museums, collections, microfilm, private libraries, etc. Further, WP:RS does not mandate that an RS need be of some minimum size or circulation. What it does require is a reliable publication process, authors regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand, and stresses that reliability of a source also depends on context. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. With all due respect, I'm afraid you're missing the point. Nobody says that the sources themselves have to be online or available ASAP. It's the citations to these sources we're talking about. Yes, the sources should be available somewhere e.g. "libraries, museums, collections, microfilm, private libraries, etc", but nobody will be able to find them unless they know via a citation what they're looking for. The distinction is critical. It's true that WP:RS doesn't mandate minimum size or circulation, but this is a non sequitur. Again, I don't see that people are debating the reliability of the sources here – it's their significance. For example, I might be mentioned a bazillion times in my neighborhood newspaper, which certainly meets WP:RS, but this still would be far short of establishing notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC).


 * Delete per Dougweller and Agricola44, subject does not meet WP:N, WP:ACADEMIC, or WP:FRINGE. --Crusio (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was mentioned by David Epstien above - . Then there's Meco's point from Washingtion City Paper: "For a short, sweet time, LaViolette made headlines in newspapers and magazines around the world." Point is, he isn't horribly notable, but the court case, along with the fact that he's been covered independently of that, was involved in a Club of Rome report, has published books (even if only one is carried in a decent number of libraries), and apparantly was significant enough in the 70's "to make headlines" suggests that there's enough to warrant keeping. You may well read things differently, which is how these things go, but it seems a bit more than borderline from my perspective. Which, I should add, was surprising, as I didn't expect that. :) - Bilby (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks very much for the New Scientist citation. I'll describe the article here for others who do not have access. It is a short summary (11 sentences) of the subject's USPTO fracas and appears as one of the seven entries in that particular issue's Feedback column. (This column gives "short commentaries on amusing topics", as quoted from our own WP page of New Scientist.) You may disagree, but to me this is far short of a dedicated article that substantively discusses, him, his work, etc. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC).
 * With respects, sources toward notability do not all have to be dedicated or substantial. WP:BIO states "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability". Multiple less-than-substantial sources are perfectly acceptable... per guideline. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. If I understand the present state of affairs correctly, the predominant weight seems to now be placed on two reliable sources: a local newspaper article (Wash. City Paper) and a peripheral mention in an issue of New Scientist – The "headlines in newspapers and magazines around the world" that we've been reminded about several times have not yet been forthcoming. You omitted the second half of that criterion in your quote: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability", which is further footnoted by "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work". Taken in context, the New Scientist source basically carries little to no depth. Moreover, I think the fact that we're even having this debate on essentially only 2 sources is very indicative of non-notability. It would be important to produce these "headlines" so they could be checked – these could change matters. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment. Sorry, per the above discussion, let me rephrase in case this was not clear. It would be important to produce the citations for these "headlines" so they could be checked. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC).


 * His works are reviewed, he is written of in detail. He is quoted (for good or bad) in reliable sources which themselves see him as notable (for good or bad). If our sources see him as notable enough to write about or quote, what sense does it make for us to decide they are incorrect? We don't have to like the message or the messenger. If an article can be improved over the course of time through normal editing, it should be allowed to grow and need not be deleted, as Wikipedia does not call for nor demand immediate perfection. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Scientific articles written by LaViolette
In his retort to the sidebar of the 1999 Voss article in Science LaViolette lists the following articles:


 * 1) Astrophys. J. 301, 544 (1986)
 * 2) Intl. J. Gen. Sys. 11 281 (1985)
 * 3) Phys. Essays 5 536 (1982)
 * 4) Infin. Energy 1 31 (1996)
 * 5) Meteoritics 20 545 (1985) (also )
 * 6) Earth Moon Planets 37 241 (1987)
 * 7) Eos 74 510 (1993)
 * 8) thesis, Portland State University (1983)
 * 9) Anthropos 12 239 (1990)
 * 10) E. Laszlo et al., Goals for Mankind (Dutton, New York, 1977) (ISBN 0-525-03455-2)

He lists these in support of the following claims made in the same submission (the excerpt is from LaViolette's letter): "I was the first to disprove the expanding universe hypothesis by showing its inability to consistently fit cosmological test data (1). I was also the first to show that the jovian planets conform to the lower main sequence stellar mass-luminosity relation (2,3). My a priori prediction that brown dwarfs should also conform to this relation ha now been twice verified (2,4). I was also the originator of the subquantum kinetics microphyics methodology (2). In addition, I was the first to discover high levels of cosmic dust in polar ice (5). My published prediction that interstellar dust has been entering the solar system from the galactic center direction was later verified by Ulysses satellite data (6,7). I was the first to suggest that cosmic rays can relativistically propagate long distances through our galaxy along rectilinear trajectories (6,8), later validated by obesrvations of Cygnus X-3 and Hercules X-1. I was the first to predict that cosmic ray volleys repeatedly showered the Earth duing the last ice age (8), subsequently demonstrating with Be-10 data. I was the first to demonstrate the occurrence of a global warming event at the end of the last ice age (6,8,9). Also, in 1977, while serving as a consultant to the Club of Rome Goals for Mankind Project, I demonstrated that a photovoltaic power plant would be cheaper to build than a nuclear power plant (10)."

__meco (talk) 13:46, 26 August 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.