This article was nominated for deletion on 2 July 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
IF you would like a decent article on Randy Wayne, I know how to write one -- please write something on my user talk page and I'll see what I can do. In the meantime, wikipedia's rules are paramount and we must all abide by what the community has decided.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 21:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
On User talk:Tomwsulcer, BinaryPhoton wrote,
However, even after these changes, the only claim of notability which is supported by an independent source is that prior to the molecular identification of aquaporins in plant cells, Wayne "presented most of the now classical arguments favoring membrane water channels and clearly demonstrated their major contribution to osmotic water transport". The rest of the article is still largely a summary of Wayne's research, which relies almost entirely on primary sources, and does not use secondary sources to show the significance of this research. As I am not a plant biologist I am in no position to judge whether the aforementioned work on membrane water channels represents a significant discovery in the field. (It is possible to present "classical arguments" on a relatively obscure and insignificant subject.) If it does, then perhaps the article could be trimmed to a brief biographical summary and mention of the membrane water channel work. If it doesn't, and no other claims of notability are forthcoming, then the article should be deleted. — Psychonaut ( talk) 07:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully by Sunday or within a week.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 11:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to Tomwsulcer for his improvements. When considering further steps, take a look at the Google Scholar results for Randy Wayne. This 1985 article by Hepler and Wayne, "Calcium and plant development," gets 901 citations in Google Scholar so I think this part of his work is highly notable. The trimming of his speculative physics work is about right, but some of the plant biology stuff might be considered for restoration. He has three papers in the African Review of Physics that are freely available online but I'm not sure if due weight would justify including mention of them. He apparently has not been successful in getting his physics work accepted in widely recognized journals. Wayne quotes one of his rejection letters in this forum discussion. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 00:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
It appears that RW may meet
WP:PROF based on some of his plant sciences work. Actually despite the well-cited review article, I still don't see any clear evidence that RW meets
"1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" although the review articles are a good lead.
However, his physics work in physics is fringe (and plainly violates several well-tested physical laws) and it's not notable here. I'm paring it down to a one-liner. a13ean ( talk) 04:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
We think the review, by pulling together a loosely knit body of information, synthesized a cohesive and novel argument that is important for understanding stimulus/response coupling in plants. These qualities, together with its projection of excitement, have been appreciated by readers who favored its citation. Both of us have been repeatedly flattered by researchers who have praised the review, finding it easy to read and informative, even several years after publication.
While it is true there was a COI contributor in the past, the article in its current version as of July 6 2016 is non-COI content; it was substantially revamped by me a while back along with added references plus I watch it and the material is good, although I agree that there have been some minor dubious additions from time to time. That said, it is urged that the COI contributor should please leave the article alone.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 23:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I request that 73.38.255.229 (talk) list the reasons (published or otherwise) why he/she described the theory of light as pseudoscientific. Without any reasons the remark could be taken as name calling and should be removed. Thank you BinaryPhoton ( talk) 13:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Can someone provide a brief summary of the essentials? Fringe or not, it is certainly a curiosity and quite WP:DUE for the bio article (if not overblown). Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
BinaryPhoton ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has claimed on his user page to be Randy Wayne. BinaryPhoton created and has extensively edited this article. I recommend that he refrain from further edits to the page (per WP:COI and WP:AUTO) and instead indicate any required changes here on this talk page. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 21:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 2 July 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
IF you would like a decent article on Randy Wayne, I know how to write one -- please write something on my user talk page and I'll see what I can do. In the meantime, wikipedia's rules are paramount and we must all abide by what the community has decided.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 21:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
On User talk:Tomwsulcer, BinaryPhoton wrote,
However, even after these changes, the only claim of notability which is supported by an independent source is that prior to the molecular identification of aquaporins in plant cells, Wayne "presented most of the now classical arguments favoring membrane water channels and clearly demonstrated their major contribution to osmotic water transport". The rest of the article is still largely a summary of Wayne's research, which relies almost entirely on primary sources, and does not use secondary sources to show the significance of this research. As I am not a plant biologist I am in no position to judge whether the aforementioned work on membrane water channels represents a significant discovery in the field. (It is possible to present "classical arguments" on a relatively obscure and insignificant subject.) If it does, then perhaps the article could be trimmed to a brief biographical summary and mention of the membrane water channel work. If it doesn't, and no other claims of notability are forthcoming, then the article should be deleted. — Psychonaut ( talk) 07:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully by Sunday or within a week.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 11:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to Tomwsulcer for his improvements. When considering further steps, take a look at the Google Scholar results for Randy Wayne. This 1985 article by Hepler and Wayne, "Calcium and plant development," gets 901 citations in Google Scholar so I think this part of his work is highly notable. The trimming of his speculative physics work is about right, but some of the plant biology stuff might be considered for restoration. He has three papers in the African Review of Physics that are freely available online but I'm not sure if due weight would justify including mention of them. He apparently has not been successful in getting his physics work accepted in widely recognized journals. Wayne quotes one of his rejection letters in this forum discussion. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 00:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
It appears that RW may meet
WP:PROF based on some of his plant sciences work. Actually despite the well-cited review article, I still don't see any clear evidence that RW meets
"1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" although the review articles are a good lead.
However, his physics work in physics is fringe (and plainly violates several well-tested physical laws) and it's not notable here. I'm paring it down to a one-liner. a13ean ( talk) 04:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
We think the review, by pulling together a loosely knit body of information, synthesized a cohesive and novel argument that is important for understanding stimulus/response coupling in plants. These qualities, together with its projection of excitement, have been appreciated by readers who favored its citation. Both of us have been repeatedly flattered by researchers who have praised the review, finding it easy to read and informative, even several years after publication.
While it is true there was a COI contributor in the past, the article in its current version as of July 6 2016 is non-COI content; it was substantially revamped by me a while back along with added references plus I watch it and the material is good, although I agree that there have been some minor dubious additions from time to time. That said, it is urged that the COI contributor should please leave the article alone.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 23:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I request that 73.38.255.229 (talk) list the reasons (published or otherwise) why he/she described the theory of light as pseudoscientific. Without any reasons the remark could be taken as name calling and should be removed. Thank you BinaryPhoton ( talk) 13:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Can someone provide a brief summary of the essentials? Fringe or not, it is certainly a curiosity and quite WP:DUE for the bio article (if not overblown). Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
BinaryPhoton ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has claimed on his user page to be Randy Wayne. BinaryPhoton created and has extensively edited this article. I recommend that he refrain from further edits to the page (per WP:COI and WP:AUTO) and instead indicate any required changes here on this talk page. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 21:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)