- 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 was keep. – Joe ( talk) 10:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Derrick Lonsdale
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Derrick Lonsdale ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As per discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard. Seems to be promotional .
Although (as said on the noticeboard and previous deletion discussions) some of his research has been widely cited, the article as it is, is too promotional and would need a serious overhaul - I think a deletion and starting from scratch would be better if someone else wants to do this.
These issues have seemingly been around since 2006, so I think it's clear that nobody is actually going to fix them now. -- Bangalamania ( talk) 16:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Bangalamania ( talk) 16:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.
Bangalamania (
talk)
16:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep – Article has been up for deletion in the past for starters. A quick search on Google confirms notability in his respective fields. Google Book results, for example, number in the dozens. Article is well sourced, just requires a cleanup. Thanks -- Jkaharper ( talk) 13:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 20:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - Very weird article. The problem seems to be that the current article is largely an attempt to promote information that wouldn't pass WP:MEDRS, and I was unable to find good sources from a quick Google to meet WP:BIO. However, I do think he meets WP:NACADEMICS, probably both #1 and #7, for his work on thiamine. I'm not sure the article is bad enough to warrant WP:TNT, but after stripping out the cruft I'm really not sure what remains; the person seems famous for promoting alternative/quack medicines, but we don't _seem_ to have any reliable sources supporting that perspective. Maybe older sources like this (from the '80s!) can help. Suriname0 ( talk) 22:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes criteria 1 and 7 of WP:NACADEMIC. An un-orthodox physician to be sure, but one with significant coverage if one combs through google books. The article has issues, but not so bad that a WP:TNT is needed. WP:AFD is not cleanup. 4meter4 ( talk) 18:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.