Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightbourn Biochemical Model

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 deletion by User:Jimfbleak -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbourn Biochemical Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Non-notable to an almost ridiculous extent. Google Books, News, News archives, and Scholar searches for "Lightbourn Biochemical Model" turn up nothing at all. A general Google search for it only retrieves two pages on LinkedIn and a conference schedule. Spanish sources don't appear available either; Books, News, News archives, and Scholar searches for "Modelo Bioquimico Lightbourn" turn up nothing as well. CtP (t • c) 19:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm no expert but it sure sounds like borderline quackery full of buzzwords. (My favorite detail is the box in the diagram that contains almost random names of mathematicians) In any case this probably needs to be deleted because notability is at best questionable but more simply because it's spam. Sentences like "has resulted in unprecedented agricultural hyperproductivity in Latin America" are completely unacceptable but rather typical of the overall tone of this article and its companion Dr. Lightbourn. Pichpich (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This research is a Mexican Investigation that we are trying to spread around the world. We feel very proud to present this new research and you may find all the information on the website/blog I provided (spanish). Please support this new Investigation that will benefit the world as we know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.79.194.57 (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read the general notability guideline. The model isn't worthy of mention in an encyclopedia if it hasn't been covered in independent, reliable sources. None of the sources currently provided are independent. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a platform for you to spread your ideas. CtP (t • c) 20:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We'd Like to Apologize for those links you mentioned, I have edited my entry and replaced those non independent links for trustworthy research notes and sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbourn (talk • contribs) 20:44, July 19, 2012 (UTC)‎
  • Are you speaking of this edit? Dr. Lightbourn, nothing written by you about the model can be considered independent because you are the model's developer. CtP (t • c) 20:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails the general notability guideline given the complete lack of external sources on it. I'd also note that the guideline on fringe theories applies here, since it is of an idea that is completely ignored in mainstream literature. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• As already mentioned in this study. We are currently working on a new paradigm for being a new discovery we are trying to spread worldwide, these investigations are the first in the world working right through femto scale mathematical estimates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbourn (talk • contribs) 20:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not for you to promote your ideas. It is an encyclopedia for existing, published information, not free ad space for new ideas. If your intention is to promote this, please do so elsewhere. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We’ll take into account all your views, give us some time, as soon as possible we will be doing an article neutral with greater quality. We are part of the communication team of Lightbourn Research and are responsible to make known the research of Dr. Lightbourn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbourn (talk • contribs) 21:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Regardless of the duties of your job at Lightbourn Research, Wikipedia is not to be be used as a means of advertising your original ideas. It is meant only to spread information already noted by others. CtP (t • c) 21:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• "We ... are responsible to make known the research of Dr. Lightbourn" is a declaration that the article is intended as promotion, which is contrary to Wikipedia's policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Important note: Per Pichpich's proposal, I have merged this debate with the one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Lightbourn. Said debate will conntinue here, and its contents can be seen in the table below. CtP (t • c) 21:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both Non-notable and clear violation of WP:PROMO. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both for lack of independent reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete both. No significant independent sources have been provided. I don't see any evidence that this model has even been acknowledged, whether favorably or unfavorably, much less accepted, by the scientific community. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per above - no notability shown, no reliable sources. GregJackP Boomer! 03:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - No indication that the scientist is notable, nor his model. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both as lacking in-depth coverage by reliable independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the articles, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You may find in a general google search, books about Dr. Lightbourn and biochemical model Lightbourn, school works, presentations and news, which can also find the references of these articles, many of them are independent sources. We believe that this is not "ridiculous"
  

We changed phrases that appear to have a preference and subjective meaning such as "hyper-productivity," "revolutionary" and "paradigm" and all links towards private interests.

The biochemical model Lightbourn is a worldwide patent converted to agricultural products. By 2010 it had more than 12 000 customers in Mexico, Peru, Chile, Argentina and Germany. I do not know how you to value this as a fringe theory, but references are found in the biography of Dr. Lightbourn, its patents and scientific collaboration groups are national and international scientific communities.

The phrase "make known" is a reference to "share" and "communicate" this is our small contribution to the scientific community and with our free encyclopedia Wikipedia.

We will continue taking comments and try to correct any errors in our article, we appreciate your patience and your observations, that keep making of Wikipedia the largest encyclopedia in the world.

Omar Hernandez ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbourn (talk • contribs) 19:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• All of this is completely irrelevant if nobody else in the scientific community has acknowledged the model. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, requires that topics be noted by independent authors before inclusion. Again, look at the general notability guideline. My searches and the searches of many others seem to indicate that both the model and its creator fail this threshold, so for the article to be kept, you must prove otherwise. CtP (t • c) 21:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is not as fast, if you read the article, this is a recent discovery, and if you see the references, this works, and there are no lies in this article. I think gradually this article will have more references.

Omar Hernandez ---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbourn (talk • contribs) 04:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Once more references exist and it becomes notable per Wiki standards, then an article on it would be appropriate. At this time, based on your own comments, it is not notable and should not be included in Wikipedia. GregJackP Boomer! 04:18, 26 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.