Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Fulton

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 of the debate was delete, as requested by author —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-03-24 06:32Z

[edit] Daniel Fulton

Either a nn student bio or vanity. A google search for "daniel fulton" returns 312 unique results (the majority of which were unrelated to this person) and a search for "daniel fulton" "on human thought and understanding" ("his most well known and most important work") returns 0 results. Both speedy and prod and tags were removed; it was userfied to USer:Dgf32 but he decided to recreate it instead. TM 03:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added a speedy tag to the article under the criterion of request for deletion by original author based on Dgf's comment near the bottom of this page and his blanking of the article. --TM 05:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as ludicrous vanity. Looking at the page history, userfication was tried but rejected. dbtfz^talk 03:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Reuserfy. Royboycrashfan 03:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. --Hetar 03:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• The article was rewritten to meet the inclusion criteria for an academic figure.

Article meets the following criterion:

5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea.

As the article meets the stated inclusion criteria, the article should not be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dgf32 (talk • contribs).

• The article does not show how Fulton has introduced a notable new idea. Please provide an outside source supporting this claim, as merely expanding the article does not verify anything. By the way, removing AFD tags constitutes vandalism so please don't do it. --TM 03:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Response:

• Many sources showing that Daniel Fulton's idea of neural phenomenology is notable are available. His idea has been discussed in major peer-reviewed scientific journals such as Science as well as in papers and at confrences in the disciplines of neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, and computer science. I will point you towards two of the most well known.

“Modeling Conflict, Error, and Decision-Making”. Science. 18 February 2005: Vol. 307. no. 5712, p. 1009.

Xin, J., Qi, Y., Deng. L. “Dynamics of Basilar Membrane and Signal Processing of Sounds.” CIMMS Workshop. Beckman Institute: 7 March 2003.

As you can see, this article clearly meets the inclusion criteria for an academic. dgf32

• Embarrassing vanity. Delete - he is a philosopher, but somehow he is also doing medicla research?Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Blnguyen, Daniel Fulton did his undergraduate thesis at Columbia University in the area of the philsophy of science. He is currently attending medical school in Pennsylvania. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dgf32 (talk • contribs).

Response:

• Many sources showing that Daniel Fulton's idea of neural phenomenology is notable are available. His idea has been discussed in major peer-reviewed scientific journals such as Science as well as in papers and at confrences in the disciplines of neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, and computer science. I will point you towards two of the most well known.

“Modeling Conflict, Error, and Decision-Making”. Science. 18 February 2005: Vol. 307. no. 5712, p. 1009.

Xin, J., Qi, Y., Deng. L. “Dynamics of Basilar Membrane and Signal Processing of Sounds.” CIMMS Workshop. Beckman Institute: 7 March 2003.

• As you can see, this article clearly meets the inclusion criteria for an academic. dgf32

• What troubles me the most is that in the edit summary of the article you said that Fulton's "most well known and most important work" was still unpublished. So how did Science and others find out about his theory concerning neural phenomenology if he has yet to publish anything? --TM 04:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable, despite dgf32. Clear vanity. Bucketsofg 04:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

comment. The Science 'write up' cited above makes no mention of Fulton. (Nor does the CIMMS Workshop.) Should we add 'hoax' as a reason for deletion? Bucketsofg 05:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. OK, if you all want to delete, let's do it. dgf32 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dgf32 (talk • contribs).

• Delete per WP:BIO and WP:VAIN. As per Buckets, the Science article cited is a one-paragraph pointer to two other articles and a commentary ("perspective") in the same issue. Neither the paragraph titled "Modeling Conflict, Error, and Decision-Making", nor the Perspective, nor the two articles make any mention of Fulton as such. bikeable (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2006 (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.