Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(Edward) Michael Porrazzo

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. NawlinWiki 18:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (Edward) Michael Porrazzo

(Edward) Michael Porrazzo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Blatant coi, self-promotion, and such Dicklyon 06:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment- The article seems to fit the notability guideline however the conflict of interest does come into play. I would suggest deleting it and having it re-written from a neutral point of view more suitable for wikipedia with less copyrighted text etc. So therefor I suggest...Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Conforms? I thought that required refs to sources. Even his sock puppet hasn't helped there. Dicklyon 06:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• • AfD is not a vote but a discussion. You are expected to provide some reasoning for your opinion, not just spout "keep" or "delete". Morgan Wick 08:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I did. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 09:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete without outside references. The award of patents is not enough and there is not the slightest evidence otherwise to support anything in the article. DGG 03:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 21:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Cannot find much verifiable in this page written by Mr. Porrazzo. Claims "Discovers Fractal Wave/Particle component of Electromagnetic Spectrum and Invents first practical "Fractal" planar antenna". The patent cited - 5,627,903 does not use the word "fractal" nor does it claim or depict a fractal antenna. Nathan Cohen holds numerous fractal antenna patents and does not reference Porrazzo as prior art. suggest deletion Robertboarst 00:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I observe that the above comment is the only edit Robertboarst has ever made. Tualha (Talk) 03:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Though I had doubted it at first due to the outrageous claims, this person does in fact exist, and is listed as co-inventor on each of the cited patents (though, as Robertboarst points out, #5,627,903 is for a transducer, not an antenna). He is also co-author of The Parents' Guide. While I did not find the other books, please note that all of those, and the claim that Patent #5,627,903 is for an antenna, and the outrageous claims of inventions made in childhood and patented much later, were all added by anonymous user 217.126.123.20 (consolidated diff). (However, please also note that in Mporrazzo's most recent version, he claims he "holds the equivalence of two PhDs from the Advanced Data Institute", which he also claims to have founded!)

This article is, of course, blatant coi. That guideline points out that while coi "is not a reason to delete an article...lack of notability is." Mr. Porrazzo has invented some interesting devices, which might bring him fame in the future, but thus far his work does not seem to have garnered strong public recognition. Therefore, I recommend that we delete this article, and the associated images (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8), all of which will be orphaned if this article is deleted. Tualha (Talk) 03:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• (I am putting this here for context. Please repeat wherever appropriate.) Vsandor (presumably the "Veronika Sandor" credited on his photo) appears to be Mr. Porrazzo's meatpuppet. All three of her edits are related to him in some way. Her first act, three minutes after her account was created, was to remove the proposed deletion from his article. This now-orphaned image mentions Porrazzo and cites one of his patents. I recommend deletion for the image and blocking for the user. Tualha (Talk) 04:04, 9 July 2007 (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.