Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Low Level Radiation Campaign

:{{la|The Low Level Radiation Campaign}} ([{{fullurl:The Low Level Radiation Campaign|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Low Level Radiation Campaign}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Contested PROD. Appears to fail WP:CORP, as most of the "references" given have nothing to do with the organization directly. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I am of the opinion that this is a very borderline case, but that it should be deleted for the time being... until notability can be established. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong (SPEEDY) Delete Doesn't seem to meet notability criteria, and has large copyright violation concerns from the LLRC, Green Audit, and associated websites. If restarted, it would have to be done without this current content and with reliable sources establishing notability. It also has CoI concerns. Verbal chat 19:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  

:comment I have posted some thoughts on Ben Schumin's talk page (see link above).

:Briefly, we at Low Level Radiation Campaign contest the idea that the campaign isn't notable. It probably just looks that way to Wikipaedia editors because most of the references in the article concern the scientific issues rather than our existence and work. This is a minor quibble, however. We think the article should be deleted because the subject area we work in is characterised by highly polarised viewpoints and, after experiencing a lot of time-consuming problems editing the article last year, we don't think there's any lively prospect of making it useful informative and balanced. Material recently posted on the article verges on libel and we cannot spare resources for another protracted discussion. In the long run this kind of attack will happen again and again because the proponents of nuclear power and nuclear weapons perceive us as a major obstacle to their ambitions, and they are a large and well-funded lobby.

:Richard Bramhall

:Low Level Radiation Campaign ({{user|81.153.142.82}})

:: Please note, I've not authored any of the LLRC article. The above comment seems to be ill-advised, as it is a comment from someone with a clear conflict of interest (although they haven't voted) and seems to imply a possibility of legal action (libel). I suggest the author log in with their named account and strike or refactor their comment accordingly. Also, there have been no recent edits to this article as it was deleted; at least, until the author of this comment requested it restored. I agree that this article should not be here, but I disagree that this "campaign" is notable, having been ignored by its founder organizations and mainstream science. The claim of some kind of conspiracy shows this to be utter fringe. The lack of notability is likewise not a "minor quibble." This article will probably be deleted due to its many problems, but a new article could be created from scratch that accurately describes the LLRC and how it is viewed by the mainstream may replace it. Verbal chat 20:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete A Google Search for "Low Level Radiation Campaign" -www.llrc.com [http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=pHo&q=%22Low+Level+Radiation+Campaign%22+-www.llrc.org&start=300&sa=N yields 264 hits on Google]. At the least, this should be stripped down into relevant facts about the organization, not information on the actual research, which belongs elsewhere. II |

(t - c) 21:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

From Richard Bramhall, LLRC

I cannot sign in on my "named account" as Verbal Chat suggests. Its details are lost in the mists of last year. If you doubt my identity it can presumably be traced from my recent posts using the numerical code that Wikipedia frequently claims is the way it can trace various species of muppet.

The alleged "clear conflict of interest" is clear only according to definitions imposed by Wikipedia itself; I have explained my status openly and often, beginning with my very first post in March 2007. The voting process Verbal Chat refers to is opaque and I know nothing about it; similarly the recommendation to "strike or refactor comments" requires me to understand a language other than English; no thanks. The commentator's comment on the hypothetical relationship between LLRC and alleged "founder organisations" displays a misunderstanding based on errors of fact in the original article. Similarly the alleged silence of what s/he calls "mainstream science" on the scientific issues is a topic that could be debated at far greater length than is worth while; the message here is that the commentator is unwise to make assumptions based on the inadequate Wikipedia article; as I have already said, the references address the detail of scientific issues, not the status of this organisation. Similarly, again, what does the contributor know of the conspiracy of silence and attempted marginalisation in the field of radiation protection; entire books have been written, for example "The Woman Who Knew Too Much" by Gayle Greene ({{ISBN|0-472-08783-5}}) and Multiple Exposures" by Catherine Caufield ({{ISBN|0-06-015900-6}}).

On "notability", how anyone manages to find only 264 hits on a Google search is beyond me. I used either ""Low Level Radiation Campaign" -www.llrc.com" or ""Low Level Radiation Campaign"" alone as search terms, finding thousands of hits – around 4900 or around 5500 respectively. The article itself at one point, or the discussion page – I forget now, noted that LLRC is the only NGO to have succeeded in persuading a national government to set up a scientific advisory committee specifically to investigate its concerns. That is pretty notable, as is that fact that a campaign organised by LLRC between 1998 and 2000 derailed the transposition of a European Commission Directive in the UK. My point about notability was not predicated on the importance of the notability concept to Wikipedians but on its unimportance to LLRC.

Delete away; the many problems of this article, which I have done as much to cure as could reasonably be expected of anyone, evidence the structural faults of Wikipedia itself, not least, as I pointed out in March 2007, that ab initio you allow an unqualified person licence to write whatever garbage he pleases without reference to the organisation he purports to describe and then you demand that the organisation treat the author, bias or no bias, with deference. This is the other face of "conflict of interest". I think I used the term "denial of natural justice" at one time. It still seems relevant.

One point of agreement is the comment "At the least, this [article] should be stripped down into relevant facts about the organization, not information on the actual research, which belongs elsewhere." Too right. I hope that if someone does attempt such a strip down (or, better still, a fresh start) they will have the courtesy to tell us about it so that we may comment.

Richard Bramhall, LLRC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.142.82 (talk • contribs)

• Reply [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Low+Level+Radiation+Campaign%22+-Wikipedia&start=360&sa=N "Low Level Radiation Campaign" -wikipedia] gives me 353 hits. Just going by the number on the first page is insufficient, as it is only an estimate that does not account for repeats. -Verdatum (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable fringe group advocating a position rejected by the majority of the scientific community and disregarded by the public at large. Note: I found this on WP:FT/N - Eldereft (cont.) 22:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete, for pity's sake and have done! That said, Eldereft's comments are irrelevant, sofar as LLRC's public profile is concerned; they are scientifically ill-informed, so far as fringe theories go. And as for "notability", one wonders what test is being applied here. I have added comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Deletion_of_The_Low_Level_Radiation_Campaign_entry. Richard Bramhall, LLRC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.142.82 (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:: I have stricken this as the editor has a named account and a clear wp:coi. He has been informed that he shouldn't "vote" here (not that this is a vote). The editor is also repeatedly resorting to ad hom, which is uncivil. Verbal chat 15:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Ok. I rummaged around and found my user name and password. I undeleted my previous post. It looks to me like a voting process, and I'm not aware that anyone said I mightn't take part. Why shouldn't I?

:::I have written about the supposed conflict of interest but it seems I'm talking to myself because the same unelaborated catch-phrase keeps being repeated. And my remarks are not ad hominem. Ad hominem means "an argument based on the preferences or principles of a particular person rather than on abstract truth" - in other words "attacking the person". On the contrary, I have addressed very precisely what's been said here about LLRC which itself has to a large extent been impolite and inaccurate. Richard BramhallLlrc (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:::: Calling people "ill-informed" when dismissing their arguments without evidence is not civil. You have been repeatedly pointed to WP:COI which states: "avoid, or exercise great caution when: 1 Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with, 2 Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors". I'll leave a note on your talk page about this not being a vote. Verbal chat 17:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It was Eldereft's comments I called "ill-informed". They are ill-informed in that they ignore what I have already written on this topic, pointing towards evidence that our concerns have considerable support and scientific substance. I have repeatedly said that the Conflict of Interest allegation is a denial of natural justice in a situation where LLRC was made the subject of a biased, hostile and unbalanced article, and I have repeatedly said that I did exercise great caution in addressing it. No-one has raised any concerns of substance about what I wrote, they only complain about me writing at all - a denial of natural justice.

I have only participated in the deletion debate to the extent of asking to see what, exactly, had been deleted (i.e. before it was restored) and then to answer the questions and the unfounded allegations levelled at LLRC during the debate itself. Refusing me leave to do so is another denial of natural justice. Please answer that specific point. If I do not defend us, who will? Remember we at LLRC didn't start this, and we're content to see the article deleted.

Please note, I have begun using a new user name, since people are now concerned about the name I used when I first registered Richard Bramhall Catervula fimbriarum (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

:: You haven't provided evidence for you claims. Please provide reliable sources to that effect. Wikipedia does not subscribe to "natural justice" (which is not a natural concept!). You are free to take part in the discussion at the LLRC page and here, but not to vote or edit the page directly (paraphrasing). I don't know what bits of the present article you wrote, but the whole thing is currently a huge mess - with bias swinging in both directions. Note I originally asked for the page to be deleted because of the problems you are complaining about. If you could provide us (and I ask as you are well placed to do so) with some third party sources about your organisation, its goals, achievements, etc that would be great. If you could provide us with references to criticisms too, from reliable sources obviously, that would be at least as great. The goal is to write a great encyclopaedia, not soapbox for any version of the "truth". Verbal chat

Wikipedia does not subscribe to "natural justice"?! I think I rest my case. I've said everything necessary at least once. Richard Bramhall Catervula fimbriarum (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

:*This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for claims. This article appears to be a coatrack hanging the subject (LLRC) over the arranged evidence about Low Level Radiation exposure. This organization needs to meet the daughter guidelines for organizations (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). Right now, it doesn't meet either. I understand the fervor that Catervula fimbriarum is displaying here but there is a reason that wikipedia suggests that you not write an article about yourself--WP:COI stands first as guidance to the editor. IF you write about yourself or an organization where you work you are liable to speak from secret knowledge or treat your organization as more important than others of the same time. The likely outcome from that is that your work will be edited down by others or deleted. That's a frustrating result and one of the chief ways to avoid it is to not violate WP:COI. Protonk (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• '''Delete - the current article is being used as a WP:SOAPBOX by editor(s) with a clear conflict of interest. On the notability front, there are mentions of the group, but no coverage about the group. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as a coatrack being used to heap abuse on Brusby. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would suggest that the article should be deleted.Cadmium (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2008 (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.