Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Blaylock

Russell Blaylock

Russell Blaylock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability has not been established from WP:RS per WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Editors are forced to WP:OR and use of primary sources to find even the most basic information about the subject. Although subject has been quoted by several (mostly) fringe internet websites for his iconoclastic views on vaccination, aspartame, MSG etc., no independent, reliable sources have been found about the subject himself. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Not that I disagree the sources are not strong, what do you meant by "Editors are forced to WP:OR"?--TParis00ap (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply: Subject is said to be a neurosurgeon, but for a source, editors had to perform an online search through "Webdoc" or something similar to find any information on the individual. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but you say editors use Webdoc to find it. So is your biggest issue primary sources on webdoc? I'm not trying to catch you in a trap if that's how it seems, I'm just confused by how you said it.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My interpretation of original research is that performing such a search to find information that hasn't been published is OR. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If that were the case, searching Google for sources would be OR. In this case, it looks like some sort of limited-access site. We'd need to know more about it before it's considered "published" or not. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete WP:FRINGE subject that fails all our relevant notability criteria, despite his self-promotion (by which I mean lack of RS, etc). Verbal chat 21:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: the level of third-party coverage does not rise to the level of "significant", and gives no indication of any mainstream scientific notice of his WP:FRINGE claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 02:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: I disagree with the fringe music of the numerous garage bands that have articles describing them in Wikipedia (in the thousands), but that doesn't give me or anyone else the privilege to declare them damnatio memoriae in this work. Blaylock's views may not be mainstream, but the fact that both he and his works have been quoted in the Fredericksburg Free Lance Star (listed as reference #8 in the article), and also in the Chicago Tribune (reference #4 in the same article) is more that enough to establish him as a serious subject; as such I dispute your notion that none of his article's citations are reliable. Hence, I declare Russell Blaylock a notable subject. HarryZilber (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - A Google search on "Russell Blaylock" yielded a respectable 73,100 hits. Compare that to 37,100 Google hits for "Adelle Davis" who also wrote books on health and nutrition. Yes Blaylock is controversial, but the public attention he gets from being controversial is what makes him notable. Greensburger (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a good argument for keep - we don't go on ghits. Verbal chat 12:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - the standard per WP:PROF is higher than simply having been quoted in newspapers; I'm unable to see a criterion there that he meets. That leaves the general provisions of WP:N, however, which he appears to fulfill - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I see significant coverage in the Chicago Tribune, CBN News, and other news outlets, none of which are obviously unreliable, so as potentially fringe as this fellow is, he falls within the notability guidelines. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Where are these multiple WP:RS with significant coverage of Russel Blaylock? Verbal chat 12:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Blaylock has made substantial impact outside academia in his academic capacity - one of the conditions listed at WP:PROF which requires only one of the list be satisfied. Very strong agreement with HarryZilber's comments about editors having issued damnatio memoriae without cause.Alf ^melmac 09:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Appearing on radio shows does not satisfy the "substantial impact" clause of that criteria. Verbal chat 12:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion on that, I stand by mine.--Alf ^melmac 14:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable supporter of fringe medicine. Article does not satisfy WP:BLP. Most of the sources are either written by Baylock himself, or are only a passing mention, which does not satisfy WP:RS. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - publications plus press coverage plus ghits adds up to notability here. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:GOOGLEHITS does not satisfy WP:N, nor do trivial mentions in press. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)