| Revision as of 01:51, 16 July 2007 editMainstream astronomy (talk | contribs)77 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:18, 16 July 2007 edit undoIantresman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,376 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| *'''Delete''' Ghits are not a good way to determine the notability of an academic. I think that many people have edited the article because there are a number of ] who are active on Misplaced Pages trying to promote and advertise their ideas. They generally choose a few obscure academics whose ideas they like and blow them out-of-proportion. --] 23:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' Ghits are not a good way to determine the notability of an academic. I think that many people have edited the article because there are a number of ] who are active on Misplaced Pages trying to promote and advertise their ideas. They generally choose a few obscure academics whose ideas they like and blow them out-of-proportion. --] 23:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' Peratt is not only an accomplished scientist, but also a leader in the field of ] (Plasma Universe), his academic book, '''' has been reviewd in '''', in '''', and in '''', and I'm sure he will be found to be notable by the 3000 professional engineers and scientists who are members of the ] who receive the journal ''Transactions on Plasma Science'' (in which he is am Associate Editor), and by the several hundred scientists and engineers who share his view on Cosmology. --] 23:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' Peratt is not only an accomplished scientist, but also a leader in the field of ] (Plasma Universe), his academic book, '''' has been reviewd in '''', in '''', and in '''', and I'm sure he will be found to be notable by the 3000 professional engineers and scientists who are members of the ] who receive the journal ''Transactions on Plasma Science'' (in which he is am Associate Editor), and by the several hundred scientists and engineers who share his view on Cosmology. --] 23:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Comment''' - ''and by the several hundred scientists and engineers who share his view on Cosmology.''. This is a gross misrepresentation of who has signed the open letter. Most of its signatories are Big Bang Busters with agendas ranging from Velikovsky to creationism. Such votes ought to be removed from consideration on the basis of his dishonesty. --] 01:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: shows 218 "Scientists and Engineers", excluding the original signatories. But you are correct that most of the people who signed their name, are not shown as either Scientists and Engineers (ie. 187 independent researchers, and 105 others). But my statement does appear to be accurate, and yours to be unsubstantiated and uncivil --] 02:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] 23:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)</small> | *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>-- ] 23:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *'''Delete''' Insufficient evidence of notability. He is an accomplished senior academic, but ] requires more than being an accomplished senior academic. ] 23:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' Insufficient evidence of notability. He is an accomplished senior academic, but ] requires more than being an accomplished senior academic. ] 23:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:18, 16 July 2007
Anthony Peratt
- Anthony Peratt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This article was prodded on the grounds that it fails WP:PROF. I, too, believe it fails PROF, but think that its a close enough call that we should discuss it here. semper fictilis 22:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nom; insufficiently notable. semper fictilis 22:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete His research and name can be mentioned on the pages describing the subjects he researched. Notability does not "rub off" onto someone just because they found something notable, unless they did something notable to find that something notable (like Galileo or Columbus). NobutoraTakeda 22:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- with that policy, WP would be a kindergarten-level encyclopedia. 5 or 10 scientists, 5 or so explorers, possible 20 rock bands... The criterion you refuse to accept, "because they did something notable" is WP notability. But i shouldn't bite, today is your first day on WP. DGG (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not notable (added by user Onceonthisisland)
- Keep lots of google hits for his books and his name; lots of hits in Google Scholar - passes WP:PROF. I note too that he has been in Wiki for three years and has edits from about 20 people - indicates notability. Springnuts 22:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Ghits are not a good way to determine the notability of an academic. I think that many people have edited the article because there are a number of catastrophists who are active on Misplaced Pages trying to promote and advertise their ideas. They generally choose a few obscure academics whose ideas they like and blow them out-of-proportion. --Mainstream astronomy 23:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Peratt is not only an accomplished scientist, but also a leader in the field of Plasma cosmology (Plasma Universe), his academic book, Physics of the Plasma Universe has been reviewd in Astrophysics and space science, in Science, and in Sky and Telescope, and I'm sure he will be found to be notable by the 3000 professional engineers and scientists who are members of the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society who receive the journal Transactions on Plasma Science (in which he is am Associate Editor), and by the several hundred scientists and engineers who share his view on Cosmology. --Iantresman 23:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - and by the several hundred scientists and engineers who share his view on Cosmology.. This is a gross misrepresentation of who has signed the open letter. Most of its signatories are Big Bang Busters with agendas ranging from Velikovsky to creationism. Such votes ought to be removed from consideration on the basis of his dishonesty. --Mainstream astronomy 01:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- The list shows 218 "Scientists and Engineers", excluding the original signatories. But you are correct that most of the people who signed their name, are not shown as either Scientists and Engineers (ie. 187 independent researchers, and 105 others). But my statement does appear to be accurate, and yours to be unsubstantiated and uncivil --Iantresman 02:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Insufficient evidence of notability. He is an accomplished senior academic, but WP:PROF requires more than being an accomplished senior academic. Raymond Arritt 23:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- simply false, it requires being more notable than the average academic,and as you yourself say, he meets this. DGG (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, the criteria for WP:PROF require more than being "above average." Peratt appears to be good at what he does, but he's no more notable than several of the guys down the hall from me. The stuff that Iantresman cites, for example, is normal for any professor at a Research-I university. Raymond Arritt 01:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- it is perfectly possible that several of the guys down the hall from you may be notable. DGG (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- simply false, it requires being more notable than the average academic,and as you yourself say, he meets this. DGG (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)