Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Tips

Scott Tips

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

I'm not an agent of the New World Order trying to uphold Food Imperialism but the sources in this article are very poor indeed. NewsWithViews? An Amazon product listing? We don't want to discriminate against people with a fringe point of view, but being the columnist of Whole Foods magazine doesn't entitle one to a stand alone article. We need serious, in depth coverage in reliable WP:FRIND sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC) LuckyLouie (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any significant coverage in reliable sources. I did find this trivial mention in The Hartford Courant, but that's not enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of substantial coverage by independent reliable sources. I suppose his name could be redirected to National Health Federation, where he is already mentioned. --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What in the blue blazes is this garbage -? {{COI|date=July 2014}} So now you're either resorting to outright lies, or possibly you'd be totally out of touch with reality. Either way totally unprofessional my friend! Really below the belt and most unprofessional! {{POV|date=July 2014}} NO surprises thst you'd add this to it as well Dougweller. None at all. My good chap, just when I thought I couldn't be more disappointed you've gone a extra step further to prove me wrong. I have to say I am saddened and I do feel some sympathy for you. (Boss Reality (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
KEEP - Notability is painfully obvious And this is just a mere snap shot at the man .......
~ Whole Foods Magazine - (Monthly Columnist) [1]
~ National Health Federation - (General counselor) [2]
~ National Health Federation - (President) [3]
~ California Law Review - (Managing Editor) [4]
~ NHF delegation (2014) attending the Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA) Forty-Sixth Session in Hong Kong [5]
~ Codex Alimentarius - Global Food Imperialism ISBN 0979567009 - (Publication) At Amazon, At Good Reads, At Global Research, News With Views, The NFH Shop, Share Guide, National Health Federation, Naturodoc. More thank Amazon for sure ?? (Boss Reality (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Please read WP:GNG, WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS generally, Second Quantization (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again, lack of substantial coverage by independent reliable sources. Boss Reality doesn't seem to understand our policies and guidelines. For instance in this latest edit[6] he adds " March 2014 Tips along with Katherine A. Carroll were part of the NHF delegation that travelled to Hong Kong to attend the CCFA's Forty-Sixth Session. The goals for 2014 were to have a reduction of aluminuim and aspartame in foods. Their efforts were fruitful with the issue of aluminuim in food. The delegation helped to persuade the committe to aluminium in some foods and totally in others." The source for this is an article by Carroll. I can find no independent sources even mentioning that he was there, let alone that their efforts had any effect on the decisions -- this is totally self-publicity. As an aside, it also justifies the NPOV tag. It may be that Boss Reality has nothing to do with any of these people or organsations, but so far he has clearly shown himself to be a single purpose account whose edits are all promotional. Dougweller (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Dougweller, totally incorrect my friend. First of all I doubt that Tips would lie or the NHF would lie about him attending the forum. And as far as single purpose accounts go .... Well most of my time so far has been dealing with what I see as some vandalism and what I also believe to be censorship. Sure I'd like to do other stuff and I will do soon. But at the moment I have had to try and save articles as well as look after the day to day running of my own life. Surely my dear friend you'd understand that. BTW: NPOV Tag should not be thrown around like that. Not good my friend and I believe somewhat untoward I must say. Perhaps you should contact the National Health Federation and see what they have to say. Thanks. (Boss Reality (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I have no idea where you got the idea that my problem was the suggestion that Tips attended the event. My problem is having Wikipedia state in its own voice (or in fact even repeat self-published claims) that "heir efforts were fruitful with the issue of aluminuim in food. The delegation helped to persuade the committe to aluminium in some foods and totally in others." That's the sort of thing that justifies an NPOV tag. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on lack of significant independent coverage. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable per lack of reliable and independent secondary sources. I suggest Boss Reality read and familiarize himself with the pertinent areas of our notability requirements (particularly WP:NFRINGE) before creating other articles. Second Quantization (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable with little to no independent coverage. Boss Reality, may I recommend that you read and understand WP:FRINGEBLP, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:GNG, WP:NRV, WP:NACADEMICS, WP:BIO, and WP:OR? Many of your edits to article-space seems to run afoul of one or several of these policies and guidelines. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per non-notable. I understand this is the 3rd time this article has been created. I suggest salting it and closing per snowball. VViking_TalkEdits 01:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , It seems quite odd that this article is nominated for deletion. People are missing something here. :) There's certainly enough notable information in multiple directions to satisfy many of the most important criteria. I fail to see how this is disputed when the evidence of notability is right here. I will say that the article needs improvment but that's a minor issue. (Joecreation (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
- Sorry.... which WP:FRIND-quality sources are you referring to? jps (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, no coverage in Reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - And another one that easily gets my vote. Highly Notable, Notable for his contribution to the natural health movement and legal representation. And what about his profile and participation at the codex meetings? Massive profile. Numerous contribution in publications for food and also Law. Too much to be ignored! When reporting on the codex meetings, those challenging or questioning codex procedure are deliberately ignored by much of the mainstream media for certain reasons. Do I have to spell it out here? (Starman005 (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]