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 delete‎. ✗ plicit 14:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Malcolm Collins (author)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

Malcolm Collins (author) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)

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

Malcolm Collins is an author, business person, philanthropist and advocate of the pronatalist movement. As an author, the subject is self-published. As a business person, we have little to no evidence of notability. As a philanthropist, likewise. "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" being absent, the subject fails WP:GNG. The article is promotional in tone, incidentally, and was created by a blocked sock (though others have since contributed). Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 09:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I think this vote is more a reflection of the beliefs of the nominator rather than any real question as to if there is enough coverage to justify a page. There coverage by almost every media source ranging from the left's Huffington Post, the Telegraph, MSNBC, Piers Morgan.. all the way to the more left NYPost. I wonder if the nominator's beliefs might not align with the Natalism or eugenics beliefs that the subject endorses? Quick look and both voters on here do substantial article creation on muslim subjects. None of their articles seem to be as well referenced and cited. If there is a question about the content, which it seems to be all well cited.. keep it published and let people work on it. They certainly get enough coverage and it will likely continue. As for publishing, at least one book is on a WSJ best sellers list.. His business press seems to be well documented over several different companies.. PCMag, VentureBeat, etc..I think he was a 500 alumni and exited. I can't imagine any objection to this being a relevant wikipedia subject doesnt have more to do with more religious objections to their use of embryo screening. A search reveals a plethora of coverage in tv, print and podcasts.. Thanks for your consideration.

  Count Graduon ( talk) 17:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

   Checkuser note:  Confirmed sock of User:Kauiltan. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 04:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  If anything leave it published with a "may need clean up" notice. Count Graduon ( talk) 17:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  “Count Graduon”? That’s the most unexpected Sonichu reference I’ve seen in a while. Dronebogus ( talk) 21:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  I'm not sure if "Sonichu" was in the filter that prohibited any such reference being made on any page on Wikipedia but apparently it is not any longer. Definitely a strange context to see it come up. —DIYeditor ( talk) 23:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Per nominator. The article has a history of WP:SOCKING, will also recommended WP:SALT for draftspace and mainspace. Jamiebuba ( talk) 14:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Does a huge amount of publicity pushes, quite a lot resulting in "who on earth is this weirdo" articles - David Gerard ( talk) 19:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Does it need to be cleaned up? Yes. Were socks involved? Yes. But notable? Yes. Secondary, non-passing coverage? Also yes. We should keep, then merge this with his wife's sock draft article. Wikipedia does not specify a reason for notability: it would be totally valid to be notable for being weird as long as notability is shown via secondary sources. Chamaemelum ( talk) 01:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete Whether or not the subject is notable we need to wipe this blatantly promotional garbage off the face of earth. Dronebogus ( talk) 21:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete as spam, do not SALT at this time. —DIYeditor ( talk) 00:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Page should be protected. Plenty of coverage for wp:nexist... weird or not and they are being targeted as an extortion scheme. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/WikipediaAdminReport/comments/14szgp5/tom_a_sr_admin_is_running_undisclosed_editing/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button 2607:FB91:888C:A62:AC39:D1F7:4DF2:DE59 ( talk) 02:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Here is a list of the nominators created articles.. [2] https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Alexandermcnabb 2607:FB91:888C:A62:AC39:D1F7:4DF2:DE59 ( talk) 02:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Seems hippocritical when these are allowed .. [3] https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Jamiebuba 2607:FB91:888C:A62:AC39:D1F7:4DF2:DE59 ( talk) 02:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  That’s not how you spell hypocritical Dronebogus ( talk) 13:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  I was hoping you would misspell it. Heavy Water ( talk • contribs) 19:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  I agree to not SALT. The editor of the page needs help. [Edit: by "needs help", I meant he was currently being scammed without understanding it was a scam.] Weirdly, the IP does not seem to be the subject. He or she is falling for a Wikipedia scam and doesn't understand. IP, please see: [4] Chamaemelum ( talk) 02:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Not that I'm personally offended, but I'd strike the comment about the editor of the page. It's generally frowned upon to cast doubt on the mental state of others, I've found. (This is meant to be helpful) best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 08:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  I read "needs help" as literal as in help with the article. —DIYeditor ( talk) 11:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  A kinder reading than mine, obviously! :) Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 11:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Thanks, Alexandermcnabb--I see how it sounds when reading it again. (It wasn't a comment on his or her mental state). Chamaemelum ( talk) 22:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment I'm looking at sources, not an obvious delete, but I think if kept, the article should be Malcolm and Simone Collins, much of the coverage seems to be about them as a couple. And if any of the Collinses happen to be watching, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing may be of help to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Ok. Per sources on the Collinses and their work from 2014 [5] [6], 2020 [7] and the 2023 media-blitz including [8] [9] [10] I think there's a keep for a Malcolm and Simone Collins article, so I think this article should be rewritten and moved there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  I revise my previous "keep" comment to concur with the above. Ideally, delete this and make an article including both of them. Chamaemelum ( talk) 22:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Significant coverage focuses on the two of them combined. Plus the socking, possible COI editing, and spammish tone, just TNT it, but don't SALT; it can be recreated as a redirect to an article on him and his wife if the latter is created. Heavy Water ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Thanks to 2607:FB91:888C:A62:AC39:D1F7:4DF2:DE59 for dumping a COI template on my talk, nominating two of my article creations for deletion and tagging others. That's a nice spirit you have there, my friend... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 06:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  I reported that IP to ANI for disruptive editing and incivility Dronebogus ( talk) 08:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep?: Don't count this vote because it comes from the subject of the article. I agree with the calls to have it merged with an article on my wife. We have a shared public image, no reason to have two articles. I came here because people on Wikipedia keep emailing me / Twitter DMing me with requests to pay for keep votes.

As for significant coverage, we have had front page articles on us in both the Telegraph and the National Post, a viral article on us in Insider, topped the WSJ non-fiction best seller list, have had a Vice documentary on us, and hit major news papers about once a month. The real reason I came here was to say we keep a lot of our press on this page (even the negative stuff) which should make it easier for whomever writes the combined article: https://pragmatistfoundation.com/ Merrymilkman1 ( talk) 08:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

For the press list scroll down the page and it is the buttons near the bottom on the right hand side with the book icons next to them (or just control F things like telegraph) Merrymilkman1 ( talk) 08:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Merrymilkman1: regarding people on Wikipedia keep emailing me / Twitter DMing me with requests to pay for keep votes, these are all well-known scams. See the linked page for more information about the scam and how to report it. Ljleppan ( talk) 08:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Merrymilkman1, thanks for talking to us. In a few days, probably within a week, a non-involved Wikipedian will take a look at this discussion and "close" it, as we say around here. Depending on their closing-comment, we'll see what can be done then.

Almost everybody you encounter here has WP as hobby (at times maybe also passion or obsession), and anybody who wants money for it is most likely scamming. Our admins don't charge "service fees", and they don't have any final say on what goes into an article anyway. Perhaps you'll like this story: [11] Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete this article and allow the creation of an article about the couple, Malcolm and Simone Collins. Most of the coverage is related to the couple, so creating individual biographies is unnecessary. As this was created by a blocked UPE, it is hardly salvageable and deserves deletion per WP:TNT. Mercenf ( talk) 10:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete and ECP Salt. This article is too much the work of sockpuppets. Protect the title so that it can only be recreated by an extended-confirmed author such as an AFC reviewer. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above. Even a merged article would have BLP and notability issues at this time. Walt Yoder ( talk) 00:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  comment could just merge the two and create an article for the couple.. I havent ever seen it before on wikipedia and am not sure if it is within the scope.. obviously they get press since these references go back 20 years.. they will likely continue as founders of pronatalist non profit that advocates.. 135.148.233.69 ( talk) 18:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  If "havent ever seen it before on wikipedia" refers to articles about a married or working couple, see for example Category:Married couples and Category:Writing duos. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment: while they're not using it on en.wiki, it's clear User:TeggorMindFish (the uploader of the personal photographs at Commons) is also a connected account. BusterD ( talk) 14:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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.