Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Riordan

: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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

=[[Neil Riordan]]=

:{{la|Neil Riordan}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Neil Riordan}})

No indication that the person meets WP:BIO. Sources in the articles are papers describing processes which don't really indicate any significance for the subject. The article was apparently written with a close conflict of interest and does little more than assert the expertise and importance of the subject who, near as I can tell, is in the business of selling Vitamin C as a cancer cure. Protonk (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete Barely anything has changed since the author created it and it's a conflict of interest according to the template. WAYNESLAM 22:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Conflict of interest and questionable claims with lack of reliable sources. SynergyBlades (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete Conflict of interest, not a real doctor. --Ender The Xenocide | ( Talk | Contribs) 23:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note Some info can be found on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/dxq5s/spinal_cord_injury_patient_10_years_after_injury/c13quig . AFD was started based on info on reddit. We should make sure this is doublechecked either way before we AFD on the basis of what is said on an internet news aggregation site. (and of course it's good that someone spotted this there) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

::I would say that the onus is on the article to provide sufficient coverage and reliable sources in order to remain, rather than it being the job of the AfD entry to come up with evidence: the article in its present and past states have not given sufficient indication of notability, or included reliable sources. SynergyBlades (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

::: All I'm pointing out is that this action started on the basis of off-wiki discussion. That's an important piece of information. When that happens, you need to be extra careful, because off-wiki discussions are not part of on-wiki consensus. In some ways things are fine, we should definitely listen to what people are telling us. In some ways it means we need to be careful, because we don't want to be unduly influenced. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

::I saw the post on reddit and came over here to look at the article. What I found here was what led me to AfD the article. That is to say, the article is supported only by sources which do not directly reference the person or give any indication of his importance. The slant of the article is also problematic but not the primary concern. If the subject was notable enough to see detailed coverage than we could easily mitigate a POV problem. Protonk (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

::Stop telling people about Reddit! I'm sick of all the noobs appearing. Tildae (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)— Tildae (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

::: I think we should stop telling reddit about wikipedia. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

::Where is the coverage from reliable sources, or the scholarly articles on this ground-breaking treatment? SynergyBlades (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete. doesn't meet WP:BIO. R. S. Shaw (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete, no WP:RS indicating notability, either through the company or the "unique treatment approach" claimed in the article. --Kinu t/c 09:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established through WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2011 (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.