Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vernon Coleman (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:51, 21 March 2020

Vernon Coleman

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Random sample of sources cannot find anything supporting notability, but it's impossible to be sure in this unsalvageable mess of self-published / self-authored sources (the most frequent source is his own website, and most of the other sources appear to be crank letters to the editor authored by the subject and so on), COI, and promotionalism. If nothing else then WP:TNT applies. Anyone supporting keeping will need to point explicitly at appropriate sources. E Eng 14:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used on here are for the most part national and regional newspapers or national magazines. As the subject is an author there are many references to these books, which are all legitimately published and have been in the marketplace for decades. The previous proposal for deletion was rightly denied. It is very obvious that this page is being targeted because of the author's views as the deletions followed his video regarding the corona virus. This is simply redundant in comparison to this account of a notable author's life and work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.91.66 (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to list and quote the specific sources constituting "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). It's impossible to tell from the article what those would be. E Eng 15:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overly promotional, needs a rewrite but passes WP:GNG as an author whose book was made into a movie. See reviews by BBC, SBS (there are others) - perhaps a Reception section is needed for his work? I'm not sure about the European Medical Journal but they published his book, "How To Stop Your Doctor Killing You", September 1st 2003 (first published 1996; ISBN13: 9781898947141). ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent the last 15 minutes or so looking round the EMJ web site and have been unable to find the names of the people on the editorial board, which would be the minimum that anyone would need to judge its reliability. I note that it has been around for eight years but still says that it is not indexed by any selective indexer and does not have an impact factor. The fact that Coleman's other books are self-published leads me to believe that this is simply another self-publishing outfit. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this the same as "Averroes European Medical Journal"? If so, it was listed as a predatory journal on Beall's list. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  David Eppstein, pretty sure it's a scam journal. Normal for Coleman. Guy (help!) 20:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have contributed a fair amount to this article because of enjoying the subject's fiction work. Some were indeed self-published but others were not. Regardless he is a notable person whether he is likeable or what he says is popular. He has been heard in government and as Atsme writes, his work was turned into a film. I'd be happy to help to repair wherever the article can be improved. When it was started it clearly lost its way and lost cohesion. I tried to remedy this somewhat but it's hard without effectively starting all over again. I am against total removal of text as there is no basis for this especially on such a longstanding page - it simply needs to be improved if anything although many of the references seem to stand up to scrutiny as I have checked many of these myself. (talk)
This is seriously in TNT territory due to promoting the subject's crackpot views rather than being an NPOV article. Maybe there is notability, but from the article I would have guessed yet another nn crank. I'm not convinced by the sources presented so far, either. b uidhe 18:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a mess. Delete or cut down to the bare essentials. Peter Damian (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC) [EDIT] Or at least add information to make it clear that he is anti-vaccination and against MMR. I would have linked to the article where he says this but it is on Wikipedia blacklist! Peter Damian (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we can turn up an adequate supply of in-depth mainstream sources to provide a properly neutral point of view on his fringe opinions. The first AfD discussed the quantity of independent sourcing, but did not address the requirement that sourcing provide a neutral point of view. And even if adequate good sources can be found it looks like we would need to burn it to the ground first, and then likely indefinitely semiprotect it against restoration of the promotionalism and crankery as has already happened more than once. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There might be a case for wiki-notability, but there's a much stronger case for WP:TNT. XOR'easter (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am familiar with Mr. Coleman. He is a crank. I do not think he is a notable crank. Guy (help!) 20:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the deletes - neither calling the author a crank nor him being one is a valid reason to delete his BLP - see WP:AUTHOR #3 - The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. I provided the RS that verify the movie resulting from his book, and there are plenty of RS about it and the BLP as the book's author. GNG and N have both been met. Further...an article that needs a rewrite is not a reason to AfD it, either. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are echoing the first AfD, which made similar arguments but failed to address WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. We don't merely need sources because they are sources; we need them to provide a neutral point of view on the subject, especially in this case. That's why it's relevant that he's a crank. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, David - we are expected to maintain a NPOV when choosing sources, and those sources may or may not be biased or nuetral. I am echoing WP:PAG and accepted protocol for controversial BLPs per this example, which I highly recommend reading. I am not aware of any PAGs that say we cannot use biased or non-nuetral sources or that we must not include or keep BLPs of people who have fringe views, or author fiction, or have over-indulgent imaginations, or are simply not liked or respected because of their views and opinions. We write what RS have published. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not very familiar with Coleman, and disagree with some of this views, but I know one or two admirers. The article is sometimes POV and could do with editing. Coleman seems to be controversial but has published a lot. If the following is true, he should be kept: "the author of over 100 books in 25 languages, including non-fiction works about human health, politics, cricket, and animal issues,[2] and a range of novels.[3] His books have appeared on several bestseller lists, including The Sunday Times. Life Without Tranquillisers reached the Top Ten of The Sunday Times in March 1985.[4] His book Bodypower reached several bestseller lists in the UK". I'm pretty sure people want to delete him because they disagree with him. (When you think of the third-rate contributors to the Guardian who have Wikipedia entries ...) Bougatsa42 (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 :::You are echoing the first AfD, which made similar arguments but failed to address [[WP:FRINGE]] and [[WP:NPOV]]. We don't merely need sources because they are sources; we need them to provide a neutral point of view on the subject, especially in this case. That's why it's relevant that he's a crank. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 00:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 ::::No, David - we are expected to maintain a NPOV when choosing sources, and those sources may or may not be biased or nuetral. I am echoing WP:PAG and accepted protocol for controversial BLPs per this [[User talk:Atsme#BLP|example]], which I highly recommend reading. I am not aware of any PAGs that say we cannot use biased or non-nuetral sources or that we must not include or keep BLPs of people who have fringe views, or author fiction, or have over-indulgent imaginations, or are simply not liked or respected because of their views and opinions. We write what RS have published. [[User:Atsme|<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D"><sup>Atsme</sup></span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Atsme|<small>Talk</small>]]</sub> [[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]] 04:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
+* '''Keep'''. I am not very familiar with Coleman, and disagree with some of this views, but I know one or two admirers. The article is sometimes POV and could do with editing.  Coleman seems to be controversial but has published a lot. If the following is true, he should be kept: "the author of over 100 books in 25 languages, including non-fiction works about human health, politics, cricket, and animal issues,[2] and a range of novels.[3] His books have appeared on several bestseller lists, including The Sunday Times. Life Without Tranquillisers reached the Top Ten of The Sunday Times in March 1985.[4] His book Bodypower reached several bestseller lists in the UK".  I'm pretty sure people want to delete him because they disagree with him.  (When you think of the third-rate contributors to the Guardian who have Wikipedia entries ...) [[User:Bougatsa42|Bougatsa42]] ([[User talk:Bougatsa42|talk]]) 21:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)