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. There is consensus that there is sufficient sourcing Nosebagbear (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Mindell[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article violates WP:FORUM and WP:NOTADVOCACY. The whole article is skewed and based on personal opinions of individuals. The first line itself is an opinion of the subject followed by the body of the article filled with opinions from other people. Some of the paragraphs have no reference. Talking about references, I researched to understand that

1. Ref #1 leads here - https://www.cbc.ca/News/TV+Shows/Marketplace/ID/2290470304 - a dead link

2. Ref #2 leads here - https://search.proquest.com/docview/434365733 - failed verification unless you have an account

3. Ref #5 leads here - https://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/NegativeBR/vbible.html - a personal opinion of a certain individual

4. Ref #6 leads here - https://www.deseret.com/1989/9/8/18823059/speakers-urge-quackdown-against-health-fraud-in-utah - a stand-alone story, but a reflection of the opinion from the previous source

5. Ref #7 leads here - https://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/NegativeBR/hbible.html - a book review, which are generally personal opinions

The remaining are books which I couldn’t read or get hold of. Failed verification, in a way. In the absence of proper references, it violates WP:NBIO and WP:GNG too. Also observe edit warring, possible vandalism per WP:VD. Overall, delete. Brenthaven (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A dead link does not invalidate the linked content as a source. Yes, it makes it more difficult to verify (same with the paywelled source), but it doesn't invalidate it. —C.Fred (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep Mindell wants his Wikipedia article removed or rewritten. After failed attempts by many SPA's, and recent attempts by a paid editor to rewrite the article, along comes a new editor trying to delete the article based upon some outdated links, echoing past arguments that have been rejected. --Ronz (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is sufficiently notable per sources already used. If the article has particular other problems, deletion is not the way to deal with them. Alexbrn (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's fine, per Ronz. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 09:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gets coverage. So does his books. [1] Dream Focus 13:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The argument made by the proposer isn't very sound. Ref's 1 & 2 are awkward, but still valid. Ref 5 is Quackwatch and Quackwatch's usability in BLPs is debated, but I beleive that most editors concede that articles not by Dr. Barrett are OK. Ref 6 is a third party article by a reputable source that reports on a keynote speech given by the author of ref 3. That seems ok? Ref 7 is also a Quackwatch article not by Dr Barrett. It probably doesn't convey additional notability that the previous article didn't, but it's a valid source. ApLundell (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2019 (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.