Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stimoceiver


 * 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 Merge into José Manuel Rodriguez Delgado. Merge was done by Bpmullins, so this is procedural, and I'll clean up any problems. Krakatoa Katie  13:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Stimoceiver
No verifiable, third-party sources. -tagged since February. Please delete. --Pjacobi 10:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no verifiability = no article. Seraphimblade 10:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * SPEEDY DELETE per nomJoshTyler 14:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC) .  Josh.
 * Comment - Please slow down the debate process and add more depth to your arguments. - b o b b y 16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Weak Keep - The article is not verified and reads a bit like a hoax. Implanting a device in a bull's brain would require a delicate, expensive surgery and would not be undertaken lightly, especially by someone without veterinary training.  As usual, if anyone can step forward with sources, I'd be more than happy to strike my earlier statement and reevaluate my suggestion. - b o b b y  16:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC) I'm still not convinced, but there is at least some sourcing now.  I'm going to poke around on my own, but for now I've upgraded my suggestion.  - b o <em style="color:blue;font-variant:small-caps">b <em style="color:red;font-variant:small-caps">b <em style="color:blue;font-variant:small-caps">y  17:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * is one of Delgado's papers on stimoceivers. The book by Delgado is ISBN 0829017658.  You can find a review of the book's coverage of the stimoceiver here. Uncle G 17:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, this needs some research. It might even pass muster. There's a link in the related article Jose Delgado to a Scientific American back issue. The abstract looks like the full article may corroborate the article. The SciAm issue is a paid download; I'll see if the local library has a back issue I can check this in. -- Bpmullins 16:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest reading the "further reading" section of the article. &#9786; Uncle G 20:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep cleanup and reference, but I believe with a little work it is a keeper. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The proper home for this device is under its inventor. He is unquestionably notable and worthy of an entry. I'll merge this article there and provide sources. -- Bpmullins 19:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've done that. I think I bollixed up the details of the move though - the Stimoceiver article no longer has an AfD tag and the new article does. Slap my hand if necessary... In any event I think there's no shortage of sources now. -- Bpmullins 21:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep content and Merge as Bpmullins has done. Bp - you probably should have added the content and voted "merge" pending the resolution of this AfD.  However, you did such a nice job fleshing out the subject that I think we can forego the handslapping. -Kubigula (ave) 04:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think I've learned my lesson - and without doing too much violence to the process as well. I know better now... -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:47, 7 November 2006 (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.