Talk:Nelson Pass
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
[Untitled]
[edit]I believe I knew Nelson in high school. He was scary smart, if a little socially awkward in a Sheldon sort of way. We all thought he would be huge in his adult life, like first scientist on Mars huge. Audio equipment? Really? Not what I would have expected if this is the same Nelson Pass I was acquainted with back in the day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.160.237.85 (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Untitled
[edit]2009-04-25: the link for "supersymmetry" in this article is to the Wikipedia article about the particle physics topic of the same name. Suggest remove this link, I don't think it has much relevance to the topic of electronic audio amplifiers.
Self-Promoting, Unsourced, and Trivia Exceeds the Needs of Wikipedia
[edit]While Nelson Pass is possibly worthy of a Wiki entry, this one is an overdetailed fan page, or even a self-written fan page, as it has loads of detail that could only have come from Nelson Pass himself.
This junk article lists at least five "pro audio" companies that 99% of all audio professionals have never heard of, and offers a whole paragraph on some of them!
The point of Wikipedia is to allow users to look up accurate, well-sourced information on a topic they need information about. It is NOT here to tell users about things they've never heard of and never would have heard of without this self-promoting fan page.
This article actually has a section entitled "Studies" and goes on to say "1974 he received his BS in physics from the University of California-Davis.", as if that is somehow amazing and noble, worth mentioning, or even a sentence at all. Why don't we put up a list of everyone who went to Davis? For those outside the area who have never heard of it, UC Davis, especially at that time, was a farming school, and in the world of physics, a BS is the academic equivalent of "dropped out of junior college", as no real scientist would even have an intern with only a BS.
Who cares how he spent every minute of his life? If anyone does, they can call him, I'm sure he's in the book.
Someone has tried to sneak around the sourcing rules by stuffing this article with a lot of "sources", but the sources here are garbage. The only source here that is borderline legitimate is a link to a non-editorial article, which is an interview of the subject himself. This is just a guy writing his own bio with another layer stuffed in the middle. I can post a Wiki article about myself, see it get deleted for being unsourced, then get someone to interview me where I say all the same great things about myself, then I can re-post the Wiki article, and citing that interview of myself as the source defends the existence of the article? Nonsense.
This article presently list 9 sources, but two are from one website, two more are from another website, one is a SEARCH ENGINE, and three are forums.
Forums? Really? These sources are laughable!
Can someone please delete this trash so Nelson Pass can pay for his own webhosting somewhere else?--208.127.100.87 (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
"Decline BLPPROD: Sources reliable enough to withdraw a BLPPROD were added."
[edit]It should be noted that no sources were added since BLPPROD was requested. This decline also neglects to address objections to the article itself, aside from dubious sources. It is also unclear which of these sources qualify as "reliable" and how. As of yet no objective basis for their validity by Wikipedia standards has been established. The merit of the request should be thoroughly evaluated.24.145.145.82 (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)