Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Frank R. Wallace: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:12, 26 February 2007 editJoeMystical (talk | contribs)522 edits →[]← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:24, 3 February 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(20 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''KEEP'''. ] 13:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
===]=== ===]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}}
:{{la|Frank R. Wallace}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> :{{la|Frank R. Wallace}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>
]. ].
Line 14: Line 20:


] has tried to show that Wallace the ''person'' is "notable" by appealing to the following sources: ] has tried to show that Wallace the ''person'' is "notable" by appealing to the following sources:
*Friedman, Stan (2006). ''Dogs Playing Poker: Poker Kit''. Sterling Publishing Company, Inc. ISBN 1402734484. *Friedman, Stan (2006). ''Dogs Playing Poker: Poker Kit''. Sterling Publishing Company, Inc. {{ISBN|1402734484}}.
*Schreiber, Lee Robert (2005). ''Poker as Life: 101 Lessons from the World's Greatest Game. Hearst Books''. ISBN 1588164616. *Schreiber, Lee Robert (2005). ''Poker as Life: 101 Lessons from the World's Greatest Game. Hearst Books''. {{ISBN|1588164616}}.
*Hope, Tony: Hart, Markus; Wilson, Vicki (2005). Fresh Wisdom: Breakthough to Enlightenment''. BookSurge Publishing. ISBN 1419618555. *Hope, Tony: Hart, Markus; Wilson, Vicki (2005). Fresh Wisdom: Breakthough to Enlightenment''. BookSurge Publishing. {{ISBN|1419618555}}.


However, as far as I can tell, these sources hadn't undergone any rigorous fact-checking or peer-review process, they weren't written by known authorities on the subject at hand (i.e. Frank R. Wallace, the ''person''), and neither do they devote significant amount of space to discussing Wallace the man. However, as far as I can tell, these sources hadn't undergone any rigorous fact-checking or peer-review process, they weren't written by known authorities on the subject at hand (i.e. Frank R. Wallace, the ''person''), and neither do they devote significant amount of space to discussing Wallace the man.
Line 25: Line 31:


*'''Keep'''. Of course "Bi" above left out some sources like the law textook "Laws of Evidence" which discusses Wallace's legal escapades. It devotes over a page to the matter and entitled the section "Can 'Truth' By Replaced with 'Fully Integrated Honesty?'" And he neglected to mention that the New York Times had an article about it . And he left out the fact that DC Comics issued a comic book series based on Wallace's philosophy of Neo-Tech called ]. And he neglected to mention that Wallace is a prolific author. Do a search on Amazon or other book outlet to see how many books he's written. ] 17:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. Of course "Bi" above left out some sources like the law textook "Laws of Evidence" which discusses Wallace's legal escapades. It devotes over a page to the matter and entitled the section "Can 'Truth' By Replaced with 'Fully Integrated Honesty?'" And he neglected to mention that the New York Times had an article about it . And he left out the fact that DC Comics issued a comic book series based on Wallace's philosophy of Neo-Tech called ]. And he neglected to mention that Wallace is a prolific author. Do a search on Amazon or other book outlet to see how many books he's written. ] 17:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

:<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. {{ #if: {{{2|}}} | The preceding ] comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC{{{3|}}}).}}</small>

:::''(] &mdash; please note that, to date, all the edits of Bridge & Tunnel are geared towards heightening the image of Wallace and Neo-Tech within Misplaced Pages.)'' ] 08:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


::The law textbook and the New York Times article are about a specific court case. This means that the ''court case'' is notable, but says nothing about the notability of Wallace the ''person''. (Besides, even if one admits these sources, all they say is that Wallace changed "truth" to "fully-integrated honesty" in his oath. Certainly not enough to justify having an entire article on the man.) And Anarky certainly isn't a peer-reviewed source by any stretch. ::The law textbook and the New York Times article are about a specific court case. This means that the ''court case'' is notable, but says nothing about the notability of Wallace the ''person''. (Besides, even if one admits these sources, all they say is that Wallace changed "truth" to "fully-integrated honesty" in his oath. Certainly not enough to justify having an entire article on the man.) And Anarky certainly isn't a peer-reviewed source by any stretch.
Line 34: Line 44:
*'''Weak Keep''' - although the nominator's point is valid about the distinction between the person and his idea/philosophical doctrine, the long list of external sources does demonstrate some notability for both the man and the concept. Bear in mind also that ] redirects to this article, so if the concept of Neo-Tech is notable (which it seems to be, owing to the wide number of external sources quoted in the article) then this article can't be deleted. Alternatively, '''rename''' to Neo-Tech to reflect the fact that the concept is more notable than the person. ] 17:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC) *'''Weak Keep''' - although the nominator's point is valid about the distinction between the person and his idea/philosophical doctrine, the long list of external sources does demonstrate some notability for both the man and the concept. Bear in mind also that ] redirects to this article, so if the concept of Neo-Tech is notable (which it seems to be, owing to the wide number of external sources quoted in the article) then this article can't be deleted. Alternatively, '''rename''' to Neo-Tech to reflect the fact that the concept is more notable than the person. ] 17:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


::I agree that the philosophy Neo-Tech is more notable than the person, but the person is still notable. If someone's books and philosophy are then by default the author of those is notable. Besides his classic court cases which are cited in legal studies books make him notable too. ] 17:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC) ::I agree that the philosophy Neo-Tech is more notable than the person, but the person is still notable. If someone's books and philosophy are then by default the author of those is notable. Besides his classic court cases which are cited in legal studies books make him notable too. ] 17:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. {{ #if: {{{2|}}} | The preceding ] comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC{{{3|}}}).}}</small>


::As I've pointed out above, most of this "long list of external sources" isn't anywhere near reliable. It seems that the only sources that talk about this whole bunch of stuff with any amount of reliability are the two newspaper articles I quoted above, and they're both about IMA the ''company''. ] 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC) ::As I've pointed out above, most of this "long list of external sources" isn't anywhere near reliable. It seems that the only sources that talk about this whole bunch of stuff with any amount of reliability are the two newspaper articles I quoted above, and they're both about IMA the ''company''. ] 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Line 41: Line 51:
::* Nominator has been involved in editing this topic and subject for over a year. I smell sour grapes or another agenda. If the subject was non-notable, why wait a year to let us know? --] 20:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC) ::* Nominator has been involved in editing this topic and subject for over a year. I smell sour grapes or another agenda. If the subject was non-notable, why wait a year to let us know? --] 20:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
:::*'''Comment''' You guessed it. There is an agenda. The nominator maintains his own anti/ridicule-Neo-Tech web page and seems to spend all his time on the internet in various message bases trashing the philosophy, Frank Wallace, and others involved in it. If it's not notable then why would he devote so much energy to it? I suspect he wants to delete it simply because someone has added material to it recently that he doesn't like. ] 03:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC) :::*'''Comment''' You guessed it. There is an agenda. The nominator maintains his own anti/ridicule-Neo-Tech web page and seems to spend all his time on the internet in various message bases trashing the philosophy, Frank Wallace, and others involved in it. If it's not notable then why would he devote so much energy to it? I suspect he wants to delete it simply because someone has added material to it recently that he doesn't like. ] 03:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::If I show great interest in my dog, does that mean my dog is notable too? ] 06:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:::*'''Comment''' Why wait a year? I can explain that: one reason's that I wasn't that familiar with Misplaced Pages policy a year ago, and it didn't occur to me to put this article up for AfD. So there. ] 06:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:::*'''Comment''' Also, peer review, or at least reliability as per ], ''is'' indeed a requirement for recognizing notability, according to the policy write-up itself. And Bridge & Tunnel's sources don't fulfill this requirement. ] 06:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''delete''' Perhaps the nom as trying to find better documentation and found that there wasn't any., a very good reason to ask for AfD. The books are mostly self-published or vanity presses, and count for nothing. He mentions sigma Xi as an honor--there are over 60,000 members, and anyone with a PhD is eligible. ''']''' 22:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC) *'''delete''' Perhaps the nom as trying to find better documentation and found that there wasn't any., a very good reason to ask for AfD. The books are mostly self-published or vanity presses, and count for nothing. He mentions sigma Xi as an honor--there are over 60,000 members, and anyone with a PhD is eligible. ''']''' 22:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
:*'''Comment''' Indeed the case. The only reliable sources I could find on this trio of the ''man'', the ''idea'', and the ''company'' are the two articles stated in my nomination, and a (warning: huge PDF!). The cites by Bridge & Tunnel are either just random name-dropping, or not directly relevant to the subject of the article (i.e. Wallace the ''man''). ] 05:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:::What do you mean Wallace "the man"? You looking for bodily statistics or something? A "man" is what he's accomplished. Writing about anything he's written or done is writing about "the man." ] 15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC) <small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic. {{ #if: {{{2|}}} | The preceding ] comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC{{{3|}}}).}}</small>
::::I've already rebutted your argument above. Please respond to my rebuttal instead of regurgitating your argument over and over again. ] 12:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep''' Hard to deny the guy and his philosophy are notable. The nominator of this vote for deletion is bitter opponent of Neo-Tech and even maintains an anti-Neo-Tech web page to ridicule the philosophy, Wallace, and others involved with it: . He puts the link to his web site in the article as well. ] 03:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC) *'''Strong keep''' Hard to deny the guy and his philosophy are notable. The nominator of this vote for deletion is bitter opponent of Neo-Tech and even maintains an anti-Neo-Tech web page to ridicule the philosophy, Wallace, and others involved with it: . He puts the link to his web site in the article as well. ] 03:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:*'''Complaint''' Ad hominem attacks from you aren't a reason to keep. I may as well point out that you're obviously an ardent supporter of Neo-Tech, speaking out for Neo-Tech at every turn. Insinuations of malevolent bias, and refusal to address facts (such as those stated in my nomination), do not advance discussion. ] 05:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

*'''Strong Keep''' <s>(i wont comment as it seems user Bi tries to rebutt every comment)</s> --] 18:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
::I find this notable:

{{cquote|The oath to which he agreed was read to him in court as follows: "''Do you affirm to speak with fully integrated Honesty, only with fully integrated Honesty and nothing but fully integrated Honesty?''" He was initially refused to allow him to testify, but he appealed this to the ] which then ruled that this form of the oath was permissible.(ref)}}

::--] 18:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 11:24, 3 February 2022

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 KEEP. TigerShark 13:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Frank R. Wallace

Frank R. Wallace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

WP:N.

OK, allow me to give some background of this whole matter. Once upon a time, there was a man named Wallace Ward. He decided to call himself Frank R. Wallace, and then started a publishing company called I & O Publishing, later called Integrated Management Associates (IMA). This company sells books expounding a philosophical doctrine called Neo-Tech. So we have 3 things:

  • the person — Frank R. Wallace;
  • the company — I & O Publishing a.k.a. Neo-Tech Publishing a.k.a. IMA;
  • the philosophical doctrine — Neo-Tech.

Now, here's the thing: there are something like 0.000 reliable sources — as in, peer-reviewed journals or news sources with editorial oversight — which specifically discuss Wallace the person. Where news sources discuss Wallace, their stories are about his company, i.e. IMA: see

User:Bridge & Tunnel has tried to show that Wallace the person is "notable" by appealing to the following sources:

  • Friedman, Stan (2006). Dogs Playing Poker: Poker Kit. Sterling Publishing Company, Inc. ISBN 1402734484.
  • Schreiber, Lee Robert (2005). Poker as Life: 101 Lessons from the World's Greatest Game. Hearst Books. ISBN 1588164616.
  • Hope, Tony: Hart, Markus; Wilson, Vicki (2005). Fresh Wisdom: Breakthough to Enlightenment. BookSurge Publishing. ISBN 1419618555.

However, as far as I can tell, these sources hadn't undergone any rigorous fact-checking or peer-review process, they weren't written by known authorities on the subject at hand (i.e. Frank R. Wallace, the person), and neither do they devote significant amount of space to discussing Wallace the man.

Also, although this article was marked with the {{Notability}} tag only this month, it had already been in an unreliable state as long as it existed (since 2005 Dec 22).

-- Bi 15:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Of course "Bi" above left out some sources like the law textook "Laws of Evidence" which discusses Wallace's legal escapades. It devotes over a page to the matter and entitled the section "Can 'Truth' By Replaced with 'Fully Integrated Honesty?'" And he neglected to mention that the New York Times had an article about it . And he left out the fact that DC Comics issued a comic book series based on Wallace's philosophy of Neo-Tech called Anarky. And he neglected to mention that Wallace is a prolific author. Do a search on Amazon or other book outlet to see how many books he's written. Bridge & Tunnel 17:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
— Bridge & Tunnel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
(WP:SPA — please note that, to date, all the edits of Bridge & Tunnel are geared towards heightening the image of Wallace and Neo-Tech within Misplaced Pages.) Bi 08:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The law textbook and the New York Times article are about a specific court case. This means that the court case is notable, but says nothing about the notability of Wallace the person. (Besides, even if one admits these sources, all they say is that Wallace changed "truth" to "fully-integrated honesty" in his oath. Certainly not enough to justify having an entire article on the man.) And Anarky certainly isn't a peer-reviewed source by any stretch.
Also, Wallace being a prolific author has nothing to do with notability. Again, the issue is whether any peer-reviewed sources by other people have mentioned Wallace the person.
What next? Shall we also say that because Wallace's company is notable, therefore Wallace's niece's dog is also notable? Bi 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - although the nominator's point is valid about the distinction between the person and his idea/philosophical doctrine, the long list of external sources does demonstrate some notability for both the man and the concept. Bear in mind also that Neo-Tech redirects to this article, so if the concept of Neo-Tech is notable (which it seems to be, owing to the wide number of external sources quoted in the article) then this article can't be deleted. Alternatively, rename to Neo-Tech to reflect the fact that the concept is more notable than the person. Walton monarchist89 17:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the philosophy Neo-Tech is more notable than the person, but the person is still notable. If someone's books and philosophy are then by default the author of those is notable. Besides his classic court cases which are cited in legal studies books make him notable too. Bridge & Tunnel 17:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC) — Bridge & Tunnel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
As I've pointed out above, most of this "long list of external sources" isn't anywhere near reliable. It seems that the only sources that talk about this whole bunch of stuff with any amount of reliability are the two newspaper articles I quoted above, and they're both about IMA the company. Bi 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep The nominator lost me when he started talking about peer reviewed articles etc, and the sarcastic 0.000 references. Peer review is not a requirement for recognizing notability. We are not advocating his teachings, just reporting that he exisited and why he is notable. I do think that the article vcould use some cleanup. If the nominator seriously defeated the intergrity of each reference in a cogent manner, I could be convinced to support the nomination. --Kevin Murray 20:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Nominator has been involved in editing this topic and subject for over a year. I smell sour grapes or another agenda. If the subject was non-notable, why wait a year to let us know? --Kevin Murray 20:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You guessed it. There is an agenda. The nominator maintains his own anti/ridicule-Neo-Tech web page and seems to spend all his time on the internet in various message bases trashing the philosophy, Frank Wallace, and others involved in it. If it's not notable then why would he devote so much energy to it? I suspect he wants to delete it simply because someone has added material to it recently that he doesn't like. JoeMystical 03:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
If I show great interest in my dog, does that mean my dog is notable too? Bi 06:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Why wait a year? I can explain that: one reason's that I wasn't that familiar with Misplaced Pages policy a year ago, and it didn't occur to me to put this article up for AfD. So there. Bi 06:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Also, peer review, or at least reliability as per WP:RS, is indeed a requirement for recognizing notability, according to the policy write-up itself. And Bridge & Tunnel's sources don't fulfill this requirement. Bi 06:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • delete Perhaps the nom as trying to find better documentation and found that there wasn't any., a very good reason to ask for AfD. The books are mostly self-published or vanity presses, and count for nothing. He mentions sigma Xi as an honor--there are over 60,000 members, and anyone with a PhD is eligible. DGG 22:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean Wallace "the man"? You looking for bodily statistics or something? A "man" is what he's accomplished. Writing about anything he's written or done is writing about "the man." Bridge & Tunnel 15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC) — Bridge & Tunnel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I've already rebutted your argument above. Please respond to my rebuttal instead of regurgitating your argument over and over again. Bi 12:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Hard to deny the guy and his philosophy are notable. The nominator of this vote for deletion is bitter opponent of Neo-Tech and even maintains an anti-Neo-Tech web page to ridicule the philosophy, Wallace, and others involved with it: . He puts the link to his web site in the article as well. JoeMystical 03:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Complaint Ad hominem attacks from you aren't a reason to keep. I may as well point out that you're obviously an ardent supporter of Neo-Tech, speaking out for Neo-Tech at every turn. Insinuations of malevolent bias, and refusal to address facts (such as those stated in my nomination), do not advance discussion. Bi 05:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I find this notable:


“ The oath to which he agreed was read to him in court as follows: "Do you affirm to speak with fully integrated Honesty, only with fully integrated Honesty and nothing but fully integrated Honesty?" He was initially refused to allow him to testify, but he appealed this to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which then ruled that this form of the oath was permissible.(ref) ”
--Parker007 18:38, 2 March 2007 (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.