Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew M. Urquhart

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew M. Urquhart

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article subject does not meet WP:PROF, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Only available sources appear to be WP:SPS. Tgeairn (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable secondary sources, unsourced personal information. No evidence of notability. They claim to have invented some sort of levitation device, they call it mag-lev rather than anti-gravity, but it is fringe science nonetheless. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has problems with all of WP:GNG (where is the evidence of notability?), WP:V (where is the evidence that he actually did any of this), and WP:NPOV (this appears to be a fringe topic and as such should be counterbalanced by the mainstream view on his work; where is it?). Additionally the link [1] left by Devil Master (talk · contribs) in the deletion rationale for a contested prod is troubling; the inconsistencies pointed out by some posters in that thread suggest that we need to be extra careful with verifiability here. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Devilmaster's link is of some bogus site which has nothing to do with the science organization and he has been on some kind of campaign to throw people's impartiality of the work the project has done in a negative way. There are resources that verify the work the 2 colleagues in the project have done in honor society publications and from college faculty. The members have been inducted into honor societies for this work and it is mentioned in print in Who's Who 2009 edition. Television shows also featured them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.126.110.7 (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC) — 38.126.110.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Unsourced fringe. Bonnie Urquhart Gruenberg is another BLP that is worth a look. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and salt, for failing to meet WP:PROF, WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:NPOV criteria. No proof is provided to any of the claims in the article. Even when such proof is requested, people affiliated with this person do nothing but repeat the same things ad nauseam and making accusations toward those who require the proof. In fact, a page about Project_Home_2011_(Scientific_research_project) had already been nominated for deletion last year, and the consensus was "Delete". Devil Master (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Adding to the above, WorldCat does not list his book Principals of electrostatic forces and energy transferrence. This may actually be just a pamphlet or other form of unpublished document. Agricola44 (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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.