Talk:Russ George

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 March 2022. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This page was proposed for deletion by NatGertler (talk · contribs) on 15 October 2012.
It was contested by Infoeco (talk · contribs) on October 16, 2012

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.

individual

This page should stay. The individual is of interest, famously or infamously, to the general scientific community and the public at large. The content must remain neutral and verifiable, of course. user:MMorel

Evidence for removing proposed for deletion tag

I am removing the propose for deletion because changes have been made to the article to ensure that it is no longer an example of WP:BLP1E.

Each of the three conditions of WP:BLP1E are now fixed:

1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

There are now multiple reliable sources: newspaper and proceedsings of the U.S. congress, and they cover different events.

2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.

Because the biography in question is an entrepreneur of numerous companies, has voluntarily given congressional testimony about science, business and the public interest and has willingly spoken to the media with direct quotes it does not appear that they wish to remain a low-profile individual. The biography covers someone who has sought to be in the public limelight in order to promote their scientific claims and entrepreneurial ventures.

3. It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

The biography in question covers a few aspects of the individuals life and is well-documented.

It is clear if you google "Russ George" with or without the "Planktos Inc." that there is one individual being written about in the public limelight with this name, and that the individual is notable for a variety of endeavors both entrepreneurial and science-policy based. Infoeco (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the Congressional testimony truly does qualify as a second event, as the testimony is in regards to his plans to dump the iron filings. As such, it still seems part of that one event. (And just to be clear, while it is apparent that the Russ George who talked to Congress and who was in charge of the iron filing dumping were the same guy, it is also clear to me that not all the Russ Georges in the public limelight are the same guy, that this Russ George is a different guy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"2013 Alaska salmon harvest breaks record with historic number of pink salmon" is not a reference

Using the quote to search seems to yield stuff that looks like PR...

NPOV tag

This article reads like a PR statement written by either Mr. George himself or an employee. It cites his personal website as its first source, finds space for rebutting arguments about the results of his experiments but not for his early life and career, and inexplicably mentions the pedigree of the individual who introduced him in testimony at a public hearing in a manner best suited to a political opinion piece. I believe this article should be deleted, but this argument has clearly been had before (see previous talk page discussion,) so at the very least it should be rewritten top to bottom by an unbiased third party. 130.132.173.138 (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely not a biography. Nor is it written like an encyclopedia article. It's a much wordier version of the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation article, padded with excessive quotes. Schazjmd (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's an editor by the name of Pynotic who turned this article into George's personal soapbox. Should those edits be reverted? Generalissimo Store (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A quick rundown of state of the situation: this article seems to have been fairly unbiased, albeit rather critical of Russ George. On September 17, Pynotic began to edit the page, continuing to do so for several months; Pynotic removed sources and statements critical of Mr. George, sometimes citing broken links which were not actually broken and sometimes citing "false and misleading information" without evidence. Very little of the original article remains. I'm very new to this site, so I don't know what the effects of unilaterally reverting his edits would be, so I'm asking RfC. Generalissimo Store (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

large reversion of edits to Russ George

Should the article on Russ George be reverted to its state in early September? Generalissimo Store (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the RfC tag as this does not need a request for comment yet. ––FormalDude talk 08:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the earlier version of the article from September due to significant NPOV violations. ––FormalDude talk 08:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]