Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Pantone


 * 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. Even the references provided toward the end of the discussion convince few. We might as well save ourselves the WP:BLP trouble for this borderline case.  Sandstein  19:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Paul Pantone

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

Low notability negative BLP. The guy took a patent out on some "alternative fuel" device - which might be interesting - but the article is really about his seemingly unrelated run-ins with the law, and medical difficulties. It's been here since 2004, but for the life of me I don't know why. WP:COATRACK? Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete He's a favorite of the suppressed technology crowd, some think he's being persecuted and his technology suppressed.  There is of course no evidence that it ever worked, and its very likely that he's a crazy scammer.  The article might serve some purpose as an unbiased view, a counterpoint to the conspiracy nuts that are the rest of the links you get when you google him. Guyonthesubway (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. That article is a BLP nightmare right now.  There needs to be major cleanup.  I personally think the only way to save it is delete and re-write although I'm neutral if there is enough verifiability for that to happen.  Digital Ninja WTF 00:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If we remove all the BLP issues we're left with an article about someone with a patent. The GEET device doesn't seem to have any wide application, so it's just one of thousands of dust-gathering inventions, not really worth an article (yet) in my opinion. - Mgm|(talk) 00:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability established. Article needs work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Established by what?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 02:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * All the good references to articles about him. Isn't that how it's usually done? Not being snippy, just seemed to have a lot of article about him. Any BLP violations should be fixed though. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, this needs to be deleted and GEET needs to go into an alternative fuel article.  Digital Ninja WTF 06:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP Explanation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=252142130#Paul_Pantone Resess (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC) - user has been blocked as a sockpuppet, see Requests for checkuser/Case/Gaby de wilde.
 * Keep I don't think notability is an issue here. But the article could need some heavy reworking. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Week delete. Notability has been established, IMHO, but not the presence of anything that can be said about him without violating WP:BLP, either of him, or of the judge.  (The statements made about the judge's ruling are legally inconsistent and unsourced, so clearly imply the judge is either an idiot or biased against Mr. Pantone.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been listed in list of Pseudoscience-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Arthur Rubin, guyonthesubway and Prebys, have persistently changed the date at which Pantone was locked away. Locked away without a sentence that is. when corrected they emediatly reinserted their lie back into the article, conveniently deleting 4 sources that contradicted their lie. 2 news articles, the actual court recordings and the Paul Pantone defence program. They have repeatedly deleted all my contributions from the article calling them "nonsense", delete as much as 8 sources at a time. The arguments for deleting things are all lies. The archive reflects they have done this drive-by and delete act before on this page. WP:BLP clearly states they should behave themselves and treat people with respect. They apparently think they can just lie about the content that I dispute ( Redacted. Uncle G (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC) ). I object and now the whole article should be deleted. "so clearly imply the judge is either an idiot or biased against Mr. Pantone."; The reader may read the news and/or listen to the court recordings from 2005 and make up his own mind. ( Personal opinion and unsourced libellous assertion removed. Uncle G (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC) ) I'm trying to write an article here, then this team of 3 editors just deletes everything and they very obviously lie all the way. This behaviour prevents others from creating an objective decision about this deletion request. The article is in a far better state than it looks. The 3 editors have the article in a kind of death grip where no one can be allowed to edit it. The 8365 byte article can be found here. The team version is only 5446 bytes. Arthur Rubin goes as far as to state I need his permission to correct his lies. He didn't allow me to edit this article so I have documented his behaviour here There are over a thousand tractors and cars in Europe driving on water mixed with hydrocarbons, old oil, old cooking oil and lots of other fuel mixtures. engines like this one here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5238596150388648518#1m35s no, this video is not in the article, it's just so that you can see what exactly we are talking about here The US government is indeed torturing the inventor, no one knows if he is still alive. this alone is a note worthy conspiracy theory. More importantly, we need this stuff to fix our economic implosion. There is nothing wrong with the article, you just didn't allow me to edit it. I've had enough of this childish game. If idiots like this can just go around like raving lunatics here, lie and harass people it's time for me to go. You can read the details here:
 * Bye bye. Resess (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there are BLP violations in the above, and which should be redacted, but I have no idea how to go about that. Verbal  chat  13:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ( Done. Uncle G (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC) )
 * Blatant advertising for a product combined with libelous legal charges? Speedy delete it. Alexius08 (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a content dispute over the issues you are addressing. But what's undisputed is the subject's notability, deeming the article appropriate for inclusion even as dispute resolution and article fixes may be warranted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as advertising and soapboxing of person that is non-notable aside from things we can't have on wikipedia (BLP), and barely notable at that. GEET is non-notable on its own. Verbal   chat  13:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment After seeing User:Resess's complaint at AN and looking at the article history and talk page, I'm protecting this article - if the decision is keep, please sort out the problems on the talk page. If there are any BLP violations, see the top of the article about how to get edits made through the protection. dougweller (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, but allow re-creation from scratch if notability can be established using reliable sources as the first step in such re-creation. In the current form, it's unsalvageable. --Athol Mullen (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, references do not establish notability. Thousands of people are convicted of fraud every year, the fact that this guy has a patent on a non-commercialized and fantastical technology (breakdown of heavy elements in a chemical reaction! funny!) doesn't raise him above the crowd. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * delete per nom and Timvickers. I was going to go for keeping him and have been trying to find sources but have not been successful. There's really not enough to have an article on this guy. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Changing to weak keep There may be enough sources here. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment What about the news stories referenced in the article? And a quick search shows another extensive story in the Salt Lake Weekly: Fuel Injected Lunatic: Inventor Paul Pantone hoped to save the world. Now, will the world save him? By Stephen Dark.  That story alone has a lot of information in it and goes a long way to establish notability and there are others already referenced. Posted 07/26/2007 at http://merlib.org/node/5820ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Salt Lake Weekly is a "free alternative newsweekly" with the slogan “If we don’t print it, who will?” (link) Not a source I'd be happy hanging a BLP on. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and so? You're suggesting it's not a reliable source? Based on the fact that it's free, that it's weekly, or that you don't like their motto? I'm not aware of any policy that suggests that established weekly papers aren't reliable sources. Can you cite one?ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that this is not a high-quality source, and consequently although it would be acceptable as a citation for uncontentious facts such as cinema locations, it can't be used as the sole source for a BLP. Indeed, this freesheet seems to be the only publication paying Pantone much attention, which is odd to say the least and makes me question its reliability further. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional sources Google news is full of them. Here's one from a French source, here's an AP story reported in the Daily Courier , here's one from the Desert News , another one from the Desert News , and another one from the desert news , another source en francais , and here's a story from the Mountain Democrat .ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment We're really scraping the bottom of a very shallow barrel if a passing mention in this is the best we can do to establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The weakest reference you can point to is one that includes four paragraphs about Pantone and his invention from an AP story calling it the "star of the conference"? You still haven't provided any evidence that a well established weekly paper in Salt Lake City is a bad source, or that any of these other stories don't qualify as good references clearly establishing Pantone's notability. Is the AP unreliable? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I said that was the best, the worst is the one you linked to from Desert News titled 27 Utahns get patents for their 16 inventions. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless you've purchased access to the full article I don't know how you can know what's in it. But the bit I can view says: "Paul Pantone, Price. A novel fuel pre-treater for pre-treating an alternate fuel to render it usable in internal combustion engines, furnaces, or turbines. Filed May 16, 1997." Patent 5,794,601. I think getting a patent is fairly notable in and of itself, especially one of this nature. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Getting a patent means nothing apart from the fact that you can afford the fee. You could patent a means of harvesting green cheese from the moon if you wished, but that wouldn't make you important. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe not by itself, but that isn't the only claim in the article. Having the idea patented is but a single element that demonstrates the notability, and it can be sourced.  It does strengthen the case because it isn't the only element.    D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C)  20:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for being a nut. A notable nut with sources.     D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C)  20:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One quick note: Being a BLP, we likely need to trim the article down a bit (to the best sources) to be damn sure about the claims.   D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C)  20:42, 17 November 2008 (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.