Talk:Jean Claude Perez
Before cleaning it up a bit further, I was going to question the notability. He doesn't "maintain a website", it's a freely hosted Blogspot blog page. The hits according to the on-site counter put him only slightly above the hit-rate I get on my own Wordpress blog. So, is this even worth looking into? gnostic 14:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Probably not. Spud (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Looking a little further into it, it's not spectacularly interesting, either. There isn't much to even refute, really. postate 14:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- What are the notability criteria here? I ask because I've actually seen this used (yesterday) and couldn't find any information anywhere about it, so I had to waste the time to actually track down the original article. Since as you guys pointed out it's incredibly hard to find, I assume it has been added to some creationist science list somewhere, otherwise I wouldn't have added it. If you feel like we're giving him more traffic by having this article in the first place than he deserves, then I suppose it makes more sense to delete it :) JWGU (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
my last open access article is available in my article is now available...
from SCIRP scientific research APPLIED MATHEMAICS website http://www.scirp.org/journal/AM/Inline image 1
All data is available to reproduce SCIENTIFICALLY these results (from Table3 and public reference3). These results were used and reproduced by Pr Petoukhov (russian academy science) and were strongly discussed with Pr George Church (Harvard).
- the problem at hand, Mr Perez, is not how accurate your work is, but whether this website needs an article about you. SophieWilder 08:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Monsieur Perez, look at Sophie's comment. You are entirely missing the point. You are not doing yourself any favours by claiming to be a real scientist. If you are a real scientist, then there should NOT be an article about you here and the page SHOULD be deleted. Spud (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
This article is not very well-written and likely to attract more attention to the person than they would otherwise have. Furthermore, we're looking to be refuting a blogspot blog, which is kinda lame, IMO. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Also, there are comments above on this page that confirm my suspicion as to the accuracy of this article and there are numerous broken-linked sources which would cost more time to fix than this article is worth. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)