Talk:Barry Lynes

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 June 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 January 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

The majority of this info comes from the Lynes biography in the Mann book, and the Californian lawsuit. I welcome any additional sources or suggestions. Bregence (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notability claim

I added more information to address the non-notability tag added by user MastCell, which I believe is inaccurately applied. I note that Lynes most famous work, The Cancer Cure That Worked is mentioned in multiple medical journals, newspapers and other books is widely mentioned as the source of revived interest in the topic of Royal Rife. The book is the subject of a separate Wikipedia article that has existed for some time. Bregence (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er... except that I didn't add the notability tag. I'm borderline on notability here - his notability seems to attach to the one book he wrote, yet the only independent secondary-source mention of the book is the brief disparaging summary of it by the American Cancer Society. I'm not going to send this to WP:AfD yet, because I'd like to see if more evidence to substantiate notability can be found. Do you have any sales figures for the book (e.g. bestseller listings, Amazon rankings, etc) that could be used? Incidentally, the book article is duplicative, the book appears to fail WP:NB, and it should probably be redirected here. MastCell ^Talk 18:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, got my users wrong. I agree the articles are duplicative - thanks for the redirect. The current edition of The Cancer Cure That Worked is listed at #27 in best selling books on cancer on Amazon.com and #9 on Amazon.ca in the same category. Bregence (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's pretty good. I'm glad we agree on the redirect; anything useful in the book article can be mined from the page history and merged here. MastCell ^Talk 05:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be awkward but I disagree with most of the above. Before I tagged the article, I did a quick web search and couldn't find any evidence that Lynes meets any of our notability criteria.

I'm puzzled by the decision to redirect The Cancer Cure That Worked over here. I agree that it probably fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) but I think the book article has a much better chance of surviving WP:AfD than the Lynes article. Several independent, reliable sources have discussed the book but I'm not aware of any that discuss the author, so I think it makes a lot more sense to redirect Barry Lynes to The Cancer Cure That Worked. If anyone can find verifiable, encyclopedic information about Lynes, we can always create a section about the author over there.

Bregence, I'm afraid none of the reasons you've offered here are generally accepted as evidence of notability. The fact that someone at Wikipedia decided to create an article about The Cancer Cure That Worked is not an argument that we should also have an article about its author. And the fact that reliable sources have mentioned the book does not confer notability on its author. The general rule of thumb is this: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. As I said, I think the book might have received "significant" coverage but its author has not.

I plan to nominate this article for deletion at some stage, but if you want to keep it I'm happy to give you as much time as you want to add reliable, published sources that establish his notability. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and explain here on the discussion page which of the criteria you think Lynes meets. Regards, Polemarchus (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with one article; whether the article is entitled "Barry Lynes" or "The Cancer Cure That Worked" isn't really something I feel strongly about. MastCell ^Talk 16:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree only one article is needed, but it should be about Lynes. The notability criteria does not distinguish between an author and their work in the manner Polemarchus states. Lynes meets the notability criteria on the following two grounds. 1. Lynes work is "widely cited by peers or successors" in the alternative medicine field. A search on Google Books shows dozens of books, some of which are alt-med bestsellers like Kevin Trudeau that cite Lynes and his work on Rife. 2. "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.". There are already two independent references listed, and I'm about to add several more journal articles. As the American Cancer Society noted in a journal article, Lynes effectively revived interest in Rife. As an aside, Lynes popularity as an author is also evidenced by a book he wrote 20 years ago being in the top 10 on Amazon.ca for cancer books, and the top 30 on Amazon.com for same, as I noted above. Bregence (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2011 attempt to redirect this page

I don't know why user Mastcell decided to redirect this page after the recent AfD which reached no consensus. I've restored the page as it was prior to that action. Bregence (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus at AfD isn't required to merge or redirect a page. Do you have a substantive reason why this should be a separate article? Here you're only making a process-based argument, and a faulty one at that. MastCell ^Talk 21:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]