Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat Price (remote viewer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. A redirect to Remote viewing or Stargate Project is possible. Sandstein (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pat Price (remote viewer)

Pat Price (remote viewer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

There are virtually no sources on this person, most of it has been tagged as unsourced since August, we don't even know when he was born, all we know is that he once took part in a project that is the focus of some determined POV-pushing. A smerge and redirect would be OK, but I see no support for an independent article on someone where the only facts are in relation to his participation in a not terribly important (and rather implausible) project on which we already have an article. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. What more is there to say? I would suggest deleting the "remote viewing" template as well. Temperaltalk and matrix? 19:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm sure Pat Price could see that coming. Nick mallory (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The Chicago Tribune article does exist. (James Coates. "The CIA's crystal ball". Chicago Tribune. August 13, 1977. W8.) However, it doesn't mention Price's name. Zagalejo^^^ 20:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Crap! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete (or possibly smerge, but I can't find anything tying him to a specific remote viewing project). Perhaps someone could "remotely view" his memoires? 17:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)
  • Keep/Merge All issues have now been addressed. The page now complies with all wiki-regs. The individual was a member of a notable project which has verifiability in both history and popular culture. - perfectblue (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Er, no, the article is essentially unchanged, and there are no sources other than in respect of participation in a project. Notability is not inherited. Guy (Help!) 13:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The entry remains largely unchanged because it did not need changing, only sourcing. This is a stub, a single source will do. As for notability, the man made claims which are notable for their extraordinary nature and because the CIA took them seriously, at least for a while. He's part of the popular culture surrounding remote viewing. You might not have heard of him, put Price is famous/infamous as being the man who drew those sketches of cranes/lifting gantries that were supposed to be in Soviet facilities. How about I just list books that discuss him or his work. How many do you need to assert notability in popular culture/conspiracy beliefs?
  • Richelson Jeffrey T: The Wizards of Langley: Inside the Cia's Directorate of Science and Technology
  • Mandelbaum W. Adam: The Psychic Battlefield: A History of the Military-Occult Complex
  • Picknett Lynn , Prince Clive: The Stargate Conspiracy
  • Chalker Bill: Hair of the Alien: DNA and Other Forensic Evidence of Alien Abductions
  • Constantine Alex: Psychic Dictatorship in the USA

perfectblue (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Amendum: I have amended the entry to state his notability. This man is probably one of the best known figures in Cold War era remote viewing. His notability is conferred through multiple references to him by both believers who think that he really did these things and debunkers who use his claims as reason for remote viewing being bunk. He played a notable part in a notable part of cold war history. See added sources on the page as evidence of this.
I also would like to note that plausibility has never been a Wikipedia criteria. It's perfectly permissible to have a page about something that turned out to be a complete and utter hoax, or the ramblings of a lunatic. It's notability that counts and the fact that the CIA took him seriously and so many people are still discussing whether he was real/fake grant him this in full. Does anybody remember those sketches of gantries/cranes that get trotted out whenever believers/skeptics talk about remote viewing? Well, it was Price who drew them. Given the number of documentaries that they appear in, he's certainly notable. - perfectblue (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I am rather concerned about the comments being made on this page.

Guy: You're comments about Project Stargate are treading on WP:AFG, what may or may not have happened there has no bearing on these proceedings and cold be construed as an attempt to color people against this page by association. It is inappropriate to make such remarks on an AFD and such reasoning is not supported under current AFD policy. Temperal: Per norm is not a Wikipedia policy. What, exactly, is your reasoning? Masterpiece2000: There is no Wikipedia policy by that name, plus Wikipedia regs permit hoaxes, frauds and popular myths. Even if this man is a complete fraud and a fake, he still has notability which gives allows him to have a page here.

perfectblue (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • See WP:LAWYER. Lack of sources, lack of evidence of any coverage independent of the project, WP:BLP1E sets the standard for what to do about "biographies" that are centred on a single event. Merge and redirect is the usual route in such cases on Wikipedia these days, but the material that bears merging is already in the likely target article. Your supposed fixes do not, in fact, address the fundamental problem, which is that we don't even have sources for such trivial information as DOB. What we have in the article as you amended it is: one quote. And actually the entire basis for the article always was, pretty much, one quote. Guy (Help!) 13:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:Lawyer does not apply in this case as I am commenting on participation in the AFD process, not looking for loopholes in the process. As it stands this AFD risks being brushed over.
An AFD is a debate, not a vote and the above user's risk having their views discounted. for example, Masterpiece2000 expresses a dislike for the entry, but gives no reasons for its deletion. An admin could legitimately take this as being an "I don't like it" argument, and ignore it for the purposes of the debate. Similarly Temperal does not offer any actual reasons of opinion or of policy. How is an admin meant to determine anything from Per Norm?. - perfectblue (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Admins will be well aware that "per nom" means an endorsement of the deletion rationale advanced by the nominator. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
You could drop either a note on their talk page and ask them to clarify or expand on their rationales, I am sure they won't mind. — BillC talk 11:58, 1 January 2008 (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.