Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic dielectric resonance: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:52, 20 June 2012

Atomic_dielectric_resonance

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- Don't make personal attacks. A S Houdini (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.T R 08:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]

My posts were in fact only minutes before your instant message to dismiss my newly added references - which was clearly not enough time for you to search and find the references. One of the thrid party references is located in a reference library in England, UK and can only be accessed upon written request to the librarian. So you surely could not have had the time to conduct a thorough reading review of all of the new references listed on my page. Your continued claims that the third party articles mentioning Atomic Dielectric Resonance "fairly briefly" are completely unfounded. As for your identity, I continue to honour the fact that it should be up to you to be brave enough to reveal who you really are and disclose to Wikipedia your conflicts of interest. As for my certainty of your identity, you will be receiving a letter in the next few days - you can let the world know when you receive it. Kind Regards, Gordon Stove, Managing Director, Adrok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonstove (talk • contribs) 17:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I find that the new references are not adequate to demonstrate notability...some mentions in trade journals is neat but marginal. But actually I am more concerned about the fact that the article is written as an advertisement and contains no valuable encyclopedic information. They describe hundred-year-old techniques as if they were miraculous new inventions, rather than fitting them into a bigger picture. They discuss advantages in a misleading and exaggerated way without mentioning disadvantages. They give product details that could not possibly be of interest to anyone except customers and potential customers. If the article were rewritten from scratch in a neutral and encyclopedic way then I might be willing to overlook the marginal notability. But everything that's there right now should be deleted.

For company people here: I have nothing against Adrok and would consider them if I ever needed geological remote-sensing someday. They seem to have good engineers doing good work. I would not have any problem with the text of this article if I saw it on your company website rather than on Wikipedia. And by the way, not having a Wikipedia article will not hurt your business ... quite the contrary, you should prefer that the first google search result for ADR returns your company website, which you totally control, rather than wikipedia, which you can't control. --Steve (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - why is the deletion of this page carry with it such fervour? Surely a concerned wikipedian would merely create and Article for Deletion and then allow the community to lobby one way or the other? I suspect ulterior motives in the frantic focused effort to remove this page. Atomic Dielectric Resonance is a Phenomenon of Physics - granted, a not very well known one but a phenomenon none the less and with time industry will recognise it for what it is. Many other disciplines of physics use resonance as a form of imaging, nuclear magnetic resonance for one. Any new discipline will always incur a certain skepticism by conventional thinkers as I certainly was no different when I first encountered ADR. As a geophysicist, the first question was how does this defy skin depth equation as the term 'penetration' conjures concepts from classic EM theory and Maxwells equations. Not wanting to futher exacerbate clearly what is not an intellectual discussion, I would merely recommend the higher ground and ask Corbomiteo to please recognise that his/her comments for deletion of the page have been noted. I would recommend anyone else who is interested in the 'unusual behavior of photons' to read Richard Feynman's works in Quantum Electrodynamics for which he won a Nobel Prize. RapidGeo (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did find one source that has been published in a peer reviewed medical journal, the Journal of Translational Medicine. I found another paragraph size mention of the use of this technology in another published medical paper here (scroll down or use search term). However, I agree with Steve and the AfD nominator. Overall, this subject 's lack of noteriety means that the article does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. This is because it does not meet notability criteria per WP:GNG. Also, I do not appreciate having to wade through all the sock puppetry on this page. Such behavior is highly unprofessional. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have been following discussions on this page for a few days now, after a friend at Schlumberger (a multinational oilfield services company) brought it to my attention. The claim that radiowaves or microwaves can travel further distances when emitted from a directional, collimated source is indeed possible. This is why NASA and European Space Agency (ESA) have been able to produce images of Martian rocks with their MARSIS experiment (which sent EM waves several kilometres). Or how WiFi signals can travel further when emitted from a directional antenna than from an Omnidirectional antenna. The use of QED theory is also valid. Electromagnetic waves have been measured to penetrate rocks underground by many other companies, such as Statoil, EMGS, Exxon-Mobil through their use of CSEM technology in the oil industry. Overall, I think that the Atomic Dielectric Resonance page should be kept to keep the general public informed of further developments in its technology evolution. I note that Teck (a large Energy and mining multinational) has invested and backed the technology - perhaps they will also contribute to the wikipedia knowledge base in the future. From a business viewpoint, I think that Gordon Stove (as Managing Director of Adrok, whom uses the technology) is quite right to defend this page and he has conducted himself very professionally in the above talk section. Please keep Atomic Dielectric Resonance alive on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philchristie(sbl) (talk • contribs) 07:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 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. [[User:Corbomiteo|Corbomiteo]] ([[User talk: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?  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/31.54.115.193|31.54.115.193]] ([[User talk:31.54.115.193|talk]]) 20:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+** Don't make [[Wikipedia:NPA|personal attacks]]. [[User:A S Houdini|A S Houdini]] ([[User talk: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. <small><font face="arial">[[User:Northamerica1000|Northamerica1000]]<sup>[[User_talk:Northamerica1000|(talk)]]</sup></font></small> 10:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
@@ Line 16: / Line 17: @@
 *'''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.[[User:TimothyRias|T]][[User talk:TimothyRias|R]] 08:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
-*'''Keep''' - This article 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.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.148.56.74|86.148.56.74]] ([[User talk:86.148.56.74|talk]]) 13:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+*'''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.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.148.56.74|86.148.56.74]] ([[User talk:86.148.56.74|talk]]) 13:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 *'''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.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/31.54.115.193|31.54.115.193]] ([[User talk:31.54.115.193|talk]]) 20:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
@@ Line 25: / Line 26: @@
 *'''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.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.138.16.5|81.138.16.5]] ([[User talk:81.138.16.5|talk]]) 13:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+** 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. [[User:Corbomiteo|Corbomiteo]] ([[User talk:Corbomiteo|talk]]) 20:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' - As previously stated, fails notability ... no acknowledgment of its importance by [[WP:RS|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.) --[[User:Sbyrnes321|Steve]] ([[User talk:Sbyrnes321|talk]]) 00:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)