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 of the debate was keep referenced, verifiable rewrite initiated by Christopher Thomas -- Samir धर्म 22:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Originally prodded by Snacky with the reason "This article is almost entirely composed of unverifiable original research, and it appears to be primarily a vehicle for spamming Michael E. Thomas's webpage." Prod removed by author, nominated for AfD by Snacky. This is a procedural completion of the AfD nomination - my own opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 12:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The technology isn't apparent and there are references to the technology at the bottom of the page. I suggest Snacky study the technology. This nanotechnology is cutting edge and not easily understood by the layman.user:holoman 3 July 2006

This is holoman (talk • contribs)'s 22nd edit. Half of his edits are to this article. The other half are almost all additions of links to storage-related articles (mostly reverted by other editors). --Christopher Thomas 17:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Completely rewrite. I've already taken a stab at this, but it needs more editing by experts in the field who can vett the publications listed. If it can't be properly verified, delete. --Christopher Thomas 17:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My rewritten version. I've finished grinding through the references, and the phenomenon described is real and well-published. The rewrite linked should be sane and reasonably accurate. --Christopher Thomas 04:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Article is hereby completely with drawn by Holoman and any further inclusion by wikipedia will end with an injuntion from an attorney. No further interest in wikipedia. [holoman]

Please review WP:NLT. This is especially silly given that you released the content under GFDL when you contributed it (as stated underneath the edit box used to make any change). --Christopher Thomas 21:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy G6 per holoman's withdrawal. Tevildo 21:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not housekeeping. The closest would be CSD G7: "Author requests deletion. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author and was mistakenly created." [emphasis added] — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2nd request - Please delete my technology from your website. I again read a rewrite that is inaccurate. I do not want my technology misused and misunderstood by the imcompetent scientist rewriting something they have ZERO understanding as it shows in their writings.holoman

• Comment, to holoman. As Christopher points out above, when you uploaded your article to Wikipedia, you released it into the public domain under the GFDL. Anyone is now entitled to make any (legal) use of it they like, and you are no longer in a position to assert copyright or other intellectual property rights over it. I should also point out that threatening legal action is grounds for your indefinite suspension from Wikipedia, per WP:LEGAL. Thank you. Tevildo 13:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No copyright or other rights have been granted in writing or released. You need to study US copyright and patents laws. This is exactly my point. This website continually provides misinformation and inaccuracy to the public. Your not serving the scientific or public with the dissemination of wrongful information, facts, and theories. And the wikipedia staff of writers definitely have no integrity or honor.holoman
• In the interests of disclosure, here is Holoman's draft of the article prior to my attempt at revising it, and my rewrite. Terms like "popular inversion" (where population inversion was meant) in Holoman's draft do not inspire confidence in his accusations or his claim to be the person who developed any part of this technology, but I was careful to flag my rewrite for verification and expert review in case there were parts I'd misinterpreted regardless. --Christopher Thomas 03:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: My most recent rewrite was checked against the references and should be accurate. I work in an optics lab; as far as I can tell from the reference content, I have sufficient expertise to confirm my rewrite's accuracy. Several of User:Holoman's statements, especially in his original version, were just plain incorrect. His rewritten version of my first rewrite was better, but not much. Detailed discussion is at Talk:Photon induced electric field poling. --Christopher Thomas 04:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oooh. I just read the above. FWIW, I support Christopher Thomas'es re-write. The original posted by User:Holoman was gibberish, and used incorrect terminology juxtaposed in non-sensical ways. The article, as it currently stands, appears to make sense and to be a coherent description of a process that might possiblly work.linas 00:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd certainly hope it works, given that it's been published about :). This actually turns out to be a phenomenon I'd been meaning to track down for a while (read a popular press article about some form of electro-optic effect being used to "freeze" holographic fringe patterns into a storage medium for later interrogation, but had long-since forgotten the details when I needed to look it up again). --Christopher Thomas 02:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep following Christopher's rewrite. Tevildo 11:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; its not gibberish and seems to make physical sense, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. First sentence needs work, as it seems to start describing a solar panel. linas 14:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.