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 no consensus. This closure as no consensus is in reference to deletion, but there is plenty of agreement that the article needs a major (or even complete) overhaul. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Vernon Coleman

Vernon Coleman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(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

Followup: The claim (recently removed from the article) that the subject is "the author of over 100 books in 25 languages" pretty much sums the whole thing up. E Eng 04:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply

One might think it would be impossible to top that claim, but if so one would be wrong. Below we have an SPI claiming that the subject (born in 1946) "was the author of the first software for computers". What next? Designed the atom bomb? Discovered America? Walked with Jesus? E Eng 07:04, 23 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

• Keep - 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) ^{Adding my iVote - echoing the sentiments below by Timtempleton. Atsme _Talk 📧 20:34, 22 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 uidh e 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

Atsme, my experience with you at the G Edward Griffin article suggests your views on sourcing articles on cranks are perhaps not the soundest. Guy ( help!) 17:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply

If the goal of WP is to censor cranks who have authored books that were made into movies, I will be happy to oblige if you will point me to that policy or guideline. Please do so on my TP as I will not be responding here anymore. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:19, 22 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

  Bougatsa42, Well, he thinks they're non-fiction, anyway... Guy ( help!) 17:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep - his harmful views are surfacing with a recent YouTube video calling coronavirus a hoax. I think this is more useful being kept and accurately labeling him as a quack. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Yes that was my original point. I saw the Youtube video with horror, then referred to his Wikipedia page. There was almost nothing on the page to indicate his views on the subject of vaccination. Peter Damian ( talk) 17:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • The problem with that is that, per WP:BLP, we can only label anyone as a quack if we can show that the preponderance of reliable sources does so. Most reliable sources simply ignore such people rather than bother with stating the obvious. That is why we need to take account of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE rather than just WP:GNG. Phil Bridger ( talk) 17:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC) reply

There are so many libels in here that it is difficult to count them. You cannot call a qualified doctor a quack unless you are willing to defend a libel action. In addition to self publishing Coleman has written books published by a dozen major UK publishers, over 30 foreign publishers, large print publishers and audio publishers. It isnt difficult to see evidence of over 100 books in 25 languages. The page as most recently edited is prejudiced, biased and inaccurate. Why not mention why Coleman left The People (because a column criticising the Iraq war was rejected). Is it not of significance that the government changed its policy on tranquilliser prescribing because of Coleman. (See Hansard). Coleman was the author of the first software for computers. See Times article. The ASA is a private organisation which refused to look at evidence linking meat and cancer and then tried to ban an ad for the book. The ad was then published (full page) by The Observer and The Guardian. Coleman has been widely praised by almost all UK national papers. See his website. Coleman has presented programmes on BBC and ITV. He was the first TV agony uncle and the TV AM doctor. The Youtube video title has a wuestion mark at the end. Have any of these critics actually watched it? Why no mention of Colemans speech to UKIP. (I see that Guy believes that Brexit was swung by Putin. And he calls Coleman a crank! Also Guy works for a company making mobile phones. Coleman has been a stern critic of mobile phones. A clear conflict of interest. EMJ Books has been an imprint run by Coleman since the 1990s. Colemans books are still being published by 'proper' publishers around the world. Coleman who is in his 70s took his name off the register. It is no longer possible for retired doctors to have a licence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23wqr ( talk • contribs) 00:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Delete

Further investigation shows that Guy, who says he works for Dell, appears to be proudly left wing so there are conflicts of interest 1. Coleman was the first doctor to draw attention to the danger of mobile phones - causing brain cancer cf Superbody 2. Coleman wrote a number of pro Brexit books Coleman is known to be litigious in defending his reputation and much of this material is indefensible in court. Coleman has written that he does not want a Wikipedia page and I recommend deletion of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23wqr ( talk • contribs) 03:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Most of the subject's self-published books are either out of print or being given away on Amazon for zero dollars as a Kindle book. A WorldCat search turned up a nominal number of his titles in libraries, despite the number of books he has released. A Google search turned up no significant or wide coverage of him by reliable, third-party sources. He appears to punch out books yet they have not been well received and have received no significant reviews. The article does not come close to meeting WP:GNG, and it fails WP:BIO and WP:NAUTHOR. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 03:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I checked and found most of Colemans self published books are in print and in public libraries. All authors ebooks on Amazon are, if in kdp, given away to readers and authors receive a royalty payment from Amazon. Colemans books have been very well reviewed around the world but particularly in the UK - I remember reviews were on this site but were removed for no sensible reason by someone with their own agenda. And my apologies for a silly slip - The Times reported that Coleman co wrote the first medical software for home computers - obviously not all software. That too was removed by someone who simply wanted to make Coleman look bad for their own reasons. It seems that this page is now controlled by one or two 'editors' who have turned the page into a vindictive blog because they disapprove of Colemans views on Brexit, mobile phones, vaccination, meat eating or whatever. This page is now a disgrace and nothing to do with an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23wqr ( talk • contribs) 02:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Now that the coronavirus has been officially downgraded by the UK government (cf government site) perhaps one of the critics would like to put a note on the Coleman page congratulating the Dr on yet again being the only dr to get it right on his website and that much criticised YouTube video! He was right about Aids, Sars and all the big issues for 30 years. This page now just looks silly and the moaners who are proven wrong should offer their apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23wqr ( talk • contribs) 00:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC) See gov.uk status of covid 19 for confirmation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23wqr ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

What planet did you say you were from, exactly? E Eng 01:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

23wqr, this is exciting information. Could you please provide the exact url where the government says this, because I have been unable to find it? Phil Bridger ( talk) 07:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

You go to gov.uk Which is the main uk govt site You search for High Consequence Infectious Diseases (HCID) Its a bit hidden but its there You will see that the Public Health Bodies in the UK and the Advisory Committee onDangerous Pathogens decided on 19th march to downgrade the coronavirus The govt put this on gov.uk and four days after the decision put the country into lockdown and today are introducing new legislation giving them great powers Why do you have to be rude? An apology would be nice but I doubt I will get one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23wqr ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

And Trump says the churches will be packed at Easter. Go play in the street if you want but just so you know, neither I nor anyone else will be able to attend your funeral. E Eng 15:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't think there was anything rude about my question. Like most people I'm trying to get the best information that I can about this virus and its effects, not least because my wife is stranded in Poland at the moment waiting for a phone call to tell her she can get a flight home to the UK. Can't you just provide the url where this information is on the gov.uk web site, rather than vague instructions for finding it? Just copy and paste the location from your browser to here. Phil Bridger ( talk) 14:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

He's talking about me. People who don't believe in natural selection can be very tetchy. What he's talking about is here; https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid E Eng 15:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the url. I'm glad to know that this virus is less serious than we thought it might be, in that only a lot of people are going to die rather than all of us. Phil Bridger ( talk) 15:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

You might like to look at the govts 358 page emergency bill brought in today - especially at the section about vaccination, exactly as Coleman predicted on his website and video But all this Wikip page includes is decades old junk about trivial ASA rulings (its a private body by the way and its rulings are less significant than parking tickets) I bet the guy has had some parking tickets - you could put those up instead of bothering to mention a brave and now proven accurate prediction no one else had the guts to make — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23wqr ( talk • contribs) 15:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep No actual good reason for its deletion except that he seems to have troubled some financial and government interests. Has had clear notability over the years. No justification for removal. desmay ( talk) 19:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep As much as it grates me to see crackpots given oxygen on Wikipedia, there is sufficient independent coverage of this one (eg 1, 2). Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 07:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC) reply

DO NOT DELETE VERNON !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deprince10 ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Although he may be controversial (and not someone that I'd agree with on most subject), he appears to meet the notability criteria. The article needs cleaning up, for sure, but that is not a reason to delete it. PhantomSteve/ talk¦ contribs\ 10:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. He's a very well known personality in the UK at least, and he has sold an awful lot of books. There is enough coverage to satisfy notability criteria. Thinking that he is a crank and disliking him and his views are not valid reasons for deletion. -- Michig ( talk) 09:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep, this guy is a hoot ( "What an eccentric performance."), two sources (both probably not useable) that amply summarise him/his writings are here: "You have been warned, Mr Blair", and here: "Why I Won’t Be Buying Vernon Coleman’s ‘Oil Apocalypse’.", i especially like one of the above statements - "DO NOT DELETE VERNON !!!!" - he certainly appears to instill some fierce loyalty, anyway, Coleman has produced a substantial body of work but is it significant/well known? his works are held in, according to WorldCat, mostly doublefigure libraries see here, just take your pick and click, is this enough? some have, according to the article, been in bestseller lists, notably The Sunday Times, unfortunately, references in the article do not link to online sources which would be helpful, one book has been made into a film so thats a tick, here are some book review listings in Journal of the Royal Society of Health ( here, and here); Health Education Journal ( here, and here), and from the previous afd there are the two pieces from The Independent (thankyou Rhododendrites) - "Doctor on the Make", "What Seems to be the Problem Doctor Coleman?" so i reckon he makes it over the wikinotabiity line. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  Coolabahapple, the issue is whether there are sufficient reliable sources about him to write a neutral biography. Most of what is written turns out to be self-promotion. Guy ( help!) 08:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC) reply

sorry JzG, are you saying that the majority of the sources in the article at present are not reliable/relevant? please list them here/on the talkpage and/or be bold and remove them. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete I’m surprised to find he has virtually no RS press, surprised because you would assume he had from this page, but everything he has written appears to be self published and self promoted. Regardless of his views, he doesn’t meet notability if you actually look closely. It’s a clear case of self aggrandizement and we’re not here to be his publicity department. Mramoeba ( talk) 23:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• He does have quite a lot of RS press. He was more well known pre-2000 when he was regular newspaper columnist. The British Newspaper Archive has several reviews of his books and articles about him in reliable sources. -- Michig ( talk) 11:26, 9 April 2020 (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.