Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul LaViolette (2nd nomination)


 * 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. There seems to be a general agreement that the subject is only marginally notable, if at all; this, combined with the fact that the subject of this article requested deletion, pushes me to conclude that consensus supports deletion. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Paul LaViolette
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Subject has requested deletion. At first glance it appeared to pass WP:ACADEMIC, however, as I went about cleaning it up, I think it is indeed short of meeting the applicable inclusion criteria. Lara 15:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Weak Keep  Subject is of borderline notability. I lean towards probably notable however if he has asked to be removed... As this appears to be nothing more than a continuation of the "lible" comments Mr. LaViolette previously posted on the talk page and not a result of anything new I'm changing to keep for the moment.  Willing to reconsider depending on discussion. Recent comments on weakness of notability enough to sway me back over to delete. Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not an easy decision to make. On the one hand, it does look like he passes WP:ACADEMIC. On the other hand, when you read further there really isn't any indication that his contributions have made significant impact. We need third party sources to show that these were infact significant contributions to physics. So, delete per nom. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that subject's wishes must be taken into consideration. However, this person does seem to meet the notability criteria, and the article is amply sourced. If he has a good reason for requesting deletion, if he feels the article is flawed in some way, I may reconsider.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This section on the article's talk page details his concerns. Lara  20:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, my vote remains keep. His concerns are far too broad, sweeping and lacking in specificity. If he has a problem with the article, he should take the time to go point by point: "A is incorrect, it is really B. C is incorrect it is really D." He should do that with every single thing in the article that he says is incorrect. It's not our job to carry out detective work based upon vague assertions by the subject of the article.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you someday read your last sentence and see it in a different perspective than the one you wrote it from. Lara  22:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, let's not be mysterious about this. Can you list the aspects of this article that are problematic? If this is a bum article I don't want to keep it, but I just can't favor deletion based on what he has stated.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * When notability is questionable and the subject does not want a Wikipedia biography, why is it not better to remove it? When it's a close call anyway? Your last sentenced read as if the responsibility to research and write a complete and accurate biography is not on us. That seems absurd to me. He did not ask for a biography on our website, why then should he be burdened with the work? Lara  14:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, he didn't ask for a biography, but he is asking for deletion, so it's reasonable to expect him to provide reasons as to why that is necessary. He has an email to you in which he requests deletion, but per Nomoskedasticity's comment below, his deletion request is seriously undercut by his post indicating that he'd be OK with an article if he controls what it says.-JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok... if that is what this is about I don't see him say "remove my page" so if there isn't some new communication to that effect I may have to change my vote. As JohnnyB256 rightly points out he is notable - if weakly so. Simonm223 (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The request for deletion is new and came through OTRS. Lara  20:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unusual case... normally people want to tweak stuff written about them in their favor. If the guy doesn't want to be mentioned here, then cool. Article barely survived first AfD, I thought we were doing him a favor by tweaking and keeping. If he doesn't accept that favor then nuke it into oblivion. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The subject is notable enough to meet WP:GNG, mainly for his activities on the fringe. I would ordinarily give weight to a subject's request to be deleted when the subject is basically a private person who did not seek the notability on which his/her Wikipedia presence is predicated.  LaViolette is certainly not shrinking from the public light as evidenced by his multiple appearances on Coast to Coast AM, which in my understanding is about as notable as radio gets when you're talking about fringe-y stuff.  His complaints about the article (as reflected on the talk page) strike me as being more about tone (and a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies) than any substantial misstatements of fact-- except maybe for his implication that we should ignore Science as unreliable (!). As JamesBWatson has pointed out on the talk page, while the subject may object to the use of the term "unorthodox" to describe his theories, that description seems entirely correct. On the other hand I do grok  Seb az86556's sentiment, which is why I'm currently "weak" on this.  If there is anything more to his OTRS request, it would certainly be helpful to know.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Their email is quite detailed, though I can't divulge the contents of it (I'll request his permission for that); however, his concerns are understandable and his notability is shaky. Lara  22:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not meet WP:PROF. His paper predicting the "high intensity volleys of cosmic ray[s]" has been cited 6 times only. If it were really important, it would have been cited more than that since 1987. The rest nothing special. Perhaps notable as an author (seven books), but rest of it is not. Hence delete. Especially when considering the potential BLP problems. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Pretty marginal notability.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- LaViolette's request for deletion is seriously undercut by his post on the article talk page, where it is clear that he is perfectly happy to be the subject of a wikipedia article -- as long as it says what he wants it to say. I'm holding off on a "vote" for now, but I'm not convinced by the premise of this afd as presented. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete according to subject's request. Notability is marginal. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment. I honestly don't understand why people keep saying this person isn't notable or is marginally notable, and the nominator keeps repeating that without providing sufficient basis for that assertion. Look at the man's bio, which he vouches for as accurate and look at his resume . He is far more notable than a great many articles on Wikipedia. Hell, somebody is seeking to retain the biography of a composer because he wrote the anthem of a Spanish football club that has its own article on Wikipedia! That is a typical subject of an AfDs, that and utter rubbish and hoaxes. This Prof. LaViolette, however, is an accomplished scientist with a long record of achievement.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * He maybe passes criterion 1 of WP:ACADEMIC. That's it. His notability is not solid. Lara  18:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason why people are saying that notability á la WP:Prof #1 is not attained is that academic notability is measured not by the volume of material published but by the number of independent citations to the subject's work. GS gives tops cites of 27, 13, 9, 6, 6.. with an h index of 5. The precedent developed on these pages is that an h index of 10 is required to achieve even borderline notability. The subject's index falls far below this criterion. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC).
 * there is no such precedent of an h=10 cutoff. And there never should be, because it depends greatly on the subject field--and it also depends on the actual distribution. h index of 10 can mean 10 papers with 10 citations each or 9 papers with 200 each, and 1 with 10. I Going only by h index  is   a grossly inaccurate criterion even for a screen.    DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. You're, of course, correct. There is no hard limit. But, there certainly is an informal consensus that cases falling below about 10 are red-flagged for more comprehensive examination. Results are often presented by listing, in order, a sub-set of the citation counts starting with the highest number (as Xxanthippe did above). This is a reasonable safeguard against the distribution problem you illustrated. There are other legitimate issues with citation counting, but since the subject works ostensibly in physics, most of those should not be relevant here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC).
 * This is a matter of phenomenology. Examination of these pages for the last six months shows that articles about scholars with an h index of greater than fifteen usually get kept and those with an index of less than ten usually get deleted. There is often much argument about those in between. The h index therefore provides a useful starting point for further investigation but has the same pitfalls as any statistical measure. The issue has been extensively discussed on these pages. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC).


 * Keep notable enough, though not very, and not necessarily because of his science, but GNG as fringe. As Arxiloxos says, he is not at all a private character, but engages in public controversy. No weight at all should be given to his concerns, exactly as  Nomoskedasticity has it and said at the previous AfD also: "I went in and read how I (Paul LaViolette) have been presented in Wikipedia and do not agree at all with much of what was written. To protect my reputation, I have tried to make the necessary corrections...in the future anyone wishing to make changes, please first email me the text they wish to post about me so that I may check it"  I presume he says something similar in his letter. Accepting this as a reason is directly opposed to NPOV--and NOT WHOS WHO, where such gross bias is the standard.     DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you fail to appreciate that the Wikipedia model isn't immediately understood by those who first arrive on Wikipedia based on someone telling them that they're featured on it. His email does not make an ownership request. If the article is kept, there's going to be a lot of improvement required for the article, going through his complaints and suggestions and determining what's verifiable, neutral and relevant. As even you say, he's "notable enough, though not very". I don't suppose you'll stick around later to help sort through it all and write a good biography? Lara  15:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * as for editing the article, :I think someone who actually knows some physics might do better. I agree the request on the talk p. was "please do it my way", but together with the deletion request, it says "and if you don't, please remove the article."    DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per previous discussion I do not think the subject\s request to have the article removed should be heeded and for the reasons which other editors have elaborated. As in the previous AfD I am satisfied with the references to his work and person which the article currently provides, and having previously involved myself in that particular aspect of improving the article I still believe more references will be forthcoming to further solidify his notability. __meco (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. As far as I can tell, there've been no substantive changes in the notability situation since we last debated this case a few months ago. Summarizing, there wasn't enough to pass on WP:PROF, so the debate seemed to focus on more of a general pass, e.g. keep "the improved article as meeting WP:GNG. MichaelQSchmidt". But WP:GNG is not really satisfied either. His books are not widely held, nor is there significant and reliable coverage. All the instances of "coverage" were overstated. There was "George Noory's biography of LaViolette...", but this turned out to be nothing more than a few sentences on the web page of some late-night radio show. There was also a bunch of material from the Starburst Foundation, of which the subject is evidently the director (so not independent). Then there was the "article" in New Scientist, which turned out to be just a short mention of the subject's USPTO fracas in that particular issue's Feedback column. (This column gives "short commentaries on amusing topics" (emphasis mine), as quoted from our own WP page of New Scientist.) Yet again, not a dedicated article that substantively discusses, him, his work, etc. Finally, the best that could be mustered was an article in a local alternative newspaper, the Washington City Paper. The "headlines in newspapers and magazines around the world" that we were reminded about several times in that debate never materialized. My esteemed colleague __meco seems to still be holding out for these. Now would be the time to produce them, in which case I'll be delighted to change my position. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep mostly per DGG's arguments. He's certainly notable enough by my estimation. - Draeco (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * keep Since LaViolette is a willing public figure, his opinion about whether or not he should have an article should not get weight. I can't tell if he meets WP:PROF but he easily meets WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Question. Might the previous two commentators elaborate on their "keep" votes in light of the fact that the coverage of the subject is now seen to be vastly overstated and that "headlines in newspapers and magazines around the world" (which actually would establish notability) are still yet to be produced? Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC).


 * Comment I was basing GnG when I was saying leaning towards notable on the sources Agricola44 mentioned. However if the only source is Washington City Paper there is a problem - the Washington City Paper is not a WP:RS according to Mr. LaViolette. Simonm223 (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Mr. LaViolette's views on this matter are irrelevant, especially in relation to establishing notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally I would agree with you except that the article was primarily biographincal in nature and I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to establishing the accuracy of non-contentious biographical data. Simonm223 (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: He satisfies WP:BIO as normally applied. The Patent Office case alone was covered in multiple sources, including a couple of articles in Slate that don't appear in GNews results (I see them in results using Nexis); I've just added a quote from one and a ref from another.  As usual, there are more sources than are available via GNews.  Sure, I could add them, spend hours working on this article, but it's not necessary for me to do so before I express the view that I'm well satisfied that the sources available establish notability.  And again he is not eligible for deletion on privacy grounds. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The only specific point you mention is the patent office case. But, as argued already in the first AfD by David Eppstein, this fails on WP:BIO1E. So, unless there's something else? Perhaps we should all just cut to the chase and insist that anyone who maintains that there are "headlines in newspapers and magazines around the world" produce these, or else concede that such cannot be found. Truly, it's been months now and given the claim, it should be quite trivial to cite at least one "headline". Without these, the various oblique or insignificant references to the subject and his WP:BIO1E episode do not add up to notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC).
 * I'm sure you read my entire comment, so I'm puzzled by the implication that I did not produce any sources. In any event, here's one headline for you (which, again, I did add to the article): "Is It Religious to Believe in Cold Fusion", Slate 24 Aug 2000.  As for whether this is BLP1E, the article makes it quite clear, with sources, that there are other bases of notability, in addition to the patent office case. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but this is clearly not what is being referred to by "headlines in newspapers and magazines around the world". __meco and Bilby both refer very explicitly to the subject making essentially world news in the 1970s. If true, this sort of coverage would (1) be easy to find, and (2) automatically resolve this debate in favor of keep. The problem again is that the slate article goes right back to the patent office episode. We don't seem to be able to come up with anything else besides what has already been rehashed above, hence the WP:BIO1E concern. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC).
 * You might want to re-read that original AfD. __meco did not write that there were "headlines in newspapers and magazines around the world" -- he/she wrote that the Washington City Paper had asserted that there were "headlines in newspapers and magazines around the world" -- but that these appeared during the 70s and so might not appear in electronic searches.  So perhaps you'd like to concede that any failure to produce these sources does not undercut notability in any real sense -- this conclusion would simply reinforce the usual wikipedia bias towards whatever google can lead us to.  Now, granted, notability still needs to be demonstrated.  But I'm not impressed by a comment directed towards me that critiques my expressed view with reference to a point that I didn't make and that in any event is easily debunked.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, I think we've all read the original AfD quite carefully – precisely the reason why I reminded you that the slate article you would like us to focus on is not part the group of "headlines in newspapers and magazines around the world". Clearly, __meco and Bilby were quoting the Washington City Paper and did not originate this statement themselves. Semantics aside, the salient point is that all we have gotten is deafening silence with respect to these headlines, so I think it is now probably time for us to accept that they will not be forthcoming. If the man and/or his deeds truly did garner world attention in the 1970s (as the quote very explicitly says is the case), then documentation would be easy to find – and there've been 2 months to do the searching! (Check, for example, bona fide world news events from the 1970s like the Nixon resignation – they're easily found online from newsprint of the time.) Google is simply not as biased as you would have us believe when it comes to people and events of world-significance. Perhaps we should consider the possibility that the headlines haven't been found because they don't exist and he's not actually notable. What appears to be the case here is that the Washington City Paper article from whence the quote comes is basically a puff piece – there's plenty of sensational wording – but it does say, very plainly, "For a short, sweet time, LaViolette made headlines in newspapers and magazines around the world. He was heralded as a hero." If that's true, then surely we should be able to find something. Oddly, the article was written by a pop music critic, not a science reporter or some such that you might expect. At this point, I'm doubting that the Washington City Paper article even meets WP:RS itself! The deeper we dig, the more tenuous LaViolette's case seems to become. But again, I'll happily do a humble "about face" should even one bona fide headline be delivered. Very respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC).


 * Delete. Notability is marginal at best no matter which guideline we go by, and so we ought to give some weight to the wishes of the subject. Kevin (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Marginally notable? Subject wants it deleted? Not the subject of a dead tree encyclopedia article? default to delete. Come on, people, be nice. We're supposed to be nice, not mean. ++Lar: t/c 22:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - marginal at best, barely squeaks by WP:PROF if at all. The subject-request clinches it for me. Per Jimbo's famed comment; "We are not here to hurt people" - A l is o n  ❤ 22:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There may be a subtlety here that escapes me, as I don't know physics. Looking at the article as a layperson, it strikes me as a positive article that reflects well on the subject.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Setting aside specific issues the subject has voiced concern over, the article is a poor one. It is not comprehensive, it's poorly structured, and it gives undue weight to insignificant things, such as putting mention of two appearances on a radio show (two of who knows how many public speaking appearances) in the same paragraph as a major milestone in his career. It's just silly and amateur. Attempts to clean up the article are merely reverted. It's an embarrassment for him in his professional career and it's an embarrassment for Wikipedia. Lara  14:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's a serious overstatement. The article is very typical for Wikipedia. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Enquiry I just wanted to make sure it was clear that if this article is deleted it will stay on watch-lists and an attempt to reintroduce the subject matter in a manner more to Mr. LaViolette's personal preference will probably result in a speedy deletion nomination. AfD is not a good way to clean the slate for a PoV overhaul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonm223 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 21 October 2009
 * WP:CSD, specifically. Lara  17:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you mean WP:CSD? I share Simonm223's concern about this.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed I did, thank you. Lara  17:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CSD, yup, that's the one. As long as we are clear on that. Simonm223 (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: per Nomo - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. We are not here to hurt people, but rather to build an encyclopedia.  This "article" isn't really helping either way.  JBsupreme (talk) 06:24, 21 October 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.