Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic dielectric resonance

Atomic_dielectric_resonance

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Atomic dielectric resonance

Atomic_dielectric_resonance (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)

No reputable sources prove that the technology meets any of the extraordinary claims on the page. The article was created by and is being maintained by Gordon Stove, who is connected with the company that owns the technology. There's also a notability issue here, as no sources seem to be seriously discussing the technology. The whole page is, in essence, an ad for Adrok's proprietary technology. Corbomiteo (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Which specific claims are you concerned about? There is no point in being unspecific because you feel like it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.16.5 (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, the claim that ADR can penetrate miles of solid rock would be a good starting point. Or the idea that photons can be "conditioned" to pass through materials that they ordinarily wouldn't be able to pass through. The article dances around the point a bit, but ultimately insinuates that ADR can be used to identify pretty much anything. That's a pretty spectacular claim that ought to be supported by some sources not affiliated with Adrok. Corbomiteo (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - I have just found out that Corbomiteo works for a company that uses competing technologies. His comments are incredulous and disingenuous! Why hide behind a made-up name - Corbomiteo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.115.193 (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't make personal attacks. A S Houdini (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - The sources in the article, although lacking hyperlinks to internet-available sources, appear to significantly demonstrate the notability of the topic. Note that some of the sources in the article cite Stove as the author, but also note that other authors are part of the authorship of some of the respective articles/publications. This is a technical topic that benefits the encyclopedia to cover; its blanket deletion doesn't particularly improve the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Does not appear to be notable. GScholar produces only 11 hits for "Atomic Dielectric Resonance". There does not appear to be significant coverage of the subject in third party sources independent from the technologies primary proponents.TR 08:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - This articel is a well worded simple explanation of this new are of research. The references used are very useful and provide a good background to the topics raised. The claims are all justifiable and well referenced. The articel is not an advert for a company or a commercial promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.56.74 (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - This is a gem of information. We started monitoring Atomic Dielectric Resonance as part of our Geophysics course at our Univeristy. One of my friends wrote a very good essay on Atomic Dielectric Resonance and other novel non-seismic ways of imaging geology. Please keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.115.193 (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete There are a lot of unfounded allegations and (horribly obvious) sockpuppetry happening here: 31.54.115.193 claims both to be an unrelated party at a university, and yet has somehow "discovered" that I work for some other company. Needless to say, I don't work for another company, and repeating "the claims are founded" doesn't make it so. None of the references support the claim that photons can be altered to pass through rock, none of the references provide evidence that the technology can reliably image deep underground, and none of the references support the notability of the article beyond its proponents. The article itself is barely understandable and poorly written. Keeping it does not serve to improve Wikipedia. Corbomiteo (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable and almost patent nonsense. The article is so vague as to fail to discriminate itself from general spectroscopy. While it is published in a peer-reviewed journal and has a patent, as presently written it is nothing more than hype and propaganda for Adrok. Unless some concrete discussion of the physics and chemistry is involved, it's not fit for an encyclopedia. A S Houdini (talk) 06:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - There is nothing in this entry that breaches Wikipedia's policies. As for an encyclopedia entry, this article is sufficient. As for hype and proganda claims for Adrok, there are a number of proven case histories presented by Adrok (if one does a simple search or even approaches Adrok direct). Adrok have conducted a number of field surveys for my Company and have repeatedly proven rock horizon identification correctly over multiple sites with good correlations with borehole depth to depths of up to 1,000m and 2,000m. and they are the real deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.16.5 (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • First, none of those studies are peer reviewed. They are case studies. Of course Adrok claims the technology works. Second, if you're going to try to pretend to be a satisfied customer of Adrok, you should probably avoid posting from an IP address that has: a) already voted and b) resolves to mail.adrokgroup.com. Nice try. Corbomiteo (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - As previously stated, fails notability ... no acknowledgment of its importance by independent third-party reliable sources. On a technical level, there is nothing useful or comprehensible here, because there is no attempt to explain how it differs from spectroscopy, ground-penetrating radar, etc. (I mean explain the differences in how it works, not the differences in range or resolution or whatever.) --Steve (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - My name is Gordon Stove and I created the original Atomic Dielectric Resonance entry on Wikipedia. Neither myself nor Adrok Ltd (the company I Manager) own the technology known as Atomic Dielectric Resonance. I am surprised that my entry has been requested to be removed, albeit from someone from another Company who uses competing technologies to my own Company. Their request is nothing short of malicious and spiteful, given that they are a competitor.

To clarify, Atomic Dielectric Resonance started as an empirical measurement made by my father, Dr G. Colin Stove, in the summer of 1997. This was later patented in 1999 (afetr stringent demonstrations and due diligence with Patent Attorneys). It is a physical measurement of resonating electromagnetic beams of low power energy(mainly in the radiowave and microwave part of the spectrum) and capturing the returned resonating beams from an object under investigation. Initially, these measurements of dielectric permittivity, enegry, frequency and phase were collected in a close-ranging propogation setting imaging objects 1 to 2m away from the transmitter. We then worked on greater transmission distances and acheived depths of peentration through the ground of 90m and then 1400m in the year 2004 (this was witnessed and later reported by the Univerisity of St Andrews, Scotland). We started commercially providing a service using our Atomic Dielectric Resonance technology for geological surveying in 2007; whereby we successfully identifed the presence of thin gas filled sand layers in the ground at depths of up to 750m (which was corroborated through subsequent drilling with our client Caithness Petrolem). Since that time, we have conducted a number of field surveys imaging geology in the ground and providing what we call Virtual Borehole readings to our clients. In 2011 one of our existing clients, Teck, a large multinational Mining and Energy company, invested $5million in our company following conducting a number of field and laboratory tests on our technology, as well as substantial due diligence on our company and technology. As a company and as a serial-inventor, we will continue to push and test the boundaries of science and technology to continue to develop new technologies and theories to help with geophysical exploration and the finding of hydrocarbons and minerals vital to the world’s health and welfare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonstove (talk • contribs) 06:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Gordon. Why not provide some citations for that material that has been through the peer review process? If it has been reported by the University of St Andrews, it should be a cinch to add it to the article. The rest of your post here is interesting, but unrelated to the discussion here of whether a) the article's claims are well-supported by the citations, and b) the technology is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Adding primary sources that support the articles claims (for example, peer-reviewed papers demonstrating that photons can be modified to penetrate rock to otherwise impossible depths) would be a great start. Adding third party sources (for example, a newspaper or magazine article discussing ADR), would really seal the deal. Unfortunately, to date, neither has been done. All you've done so far is try to accuse me of working for a competitor (I don't, but even if I did, that doesn't change the substance of your article), and sockpuppet as demonstrated above (not sure why you feel that Adrok should get at least three and probably more votes in the deletion process, but that doesn't seem very fair). Corbomiteo (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Thank you for this prompting, I have indeed added some more third party references to the article entry for Atomic Dielectric Resonance. Also, for further clarification, I have canvassed my staff at Adrok and they have confirmed that no-one other than myself from Adrok has added requests for this page to be kept on Wikipedia. If permitted by Wikipedia's deletion policy, I am sure I can drum up hundreds of people to petition support to keep Atomic Dielectric Resonance on Wikipedia. A final point: why don't you come clean and honestly disclose who you really are and which organisation you work for "Corbomiteo"?
  • Thank you for adding those sources. I'm not convinced they adequately demonstrate the notability of ADR outside of Adrok, but I am not as familiar with Wikipedia's notability and reliable source guidelines as I would like. I'd appreciate some input from someone other than myself or Gordon on this. With regards to the sockpuppetry, it's probably not worth any further discussion unless it continues. My understanding is that Wikipedia will determine consensus on merit, not by number of votes. As for my identity, I am not employed by any organization whatsoever, and do not work in any industry related to Adrok's activities. If you have evidence to the contrary, post it or cease your untrue and speculative personal attacks. Going back and forth like this serves nothing. Corbomiteo (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • There you go folks - "Corbomiteo" is still hiding behind untruths of his occupation and his conflict of interest relating to Adrok and our technology. I know the true identify of "Corbomiteo" and would rather he comes clean as oppose to me revealing the true identity of "Corbomiteo". Furthermore, I doubt he has had the time to source and read all of the new references I added a matter of minutes ago to the Atomic Dielectric Resonance entry on Wikipedia. I will let Wikipedia's deletion policy panel be the judge of "Corbomiteo's" unreasonably biased request to delete my page. Regards, Gordon Stove, Managing Director, Adrok Ltd.
      • Your new sources were posted hours ago, not minutes ago. I made no claims other than "I'm not convinced." The sources that are third party mention ADR fairly briefly, and only in the context of what Adrok claims it can do. Note that many of the sources you just added are authored by Adrok and are therefore not third-party sources. I'd encourage others to take a look at the sources and come to their own conclusions -- most of the articles are available online if one navigates to the websites of each. I'm not even going to make any further statements about my identity. I request -- nay, I demand that you reveal my identity for all to see. If you cannot do that, it's pretty obvious that you're just trying to muddy the waters. Seriously, calm down and let's discuss the merits of the article -- if the article does get to stay, a productive discussion here could provide valuable insight on how it might be improved. Corbomiteo (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)