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. Textbook case of WP:NOTAVOTE. I mostly ignored the votes by SPAs which all failed arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and were not rooted in policy. The consensus, ignoring the SPAs, are that the third party sources are not enough to establish notability. NW (Talk) 18:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Burgermeister

[edit]
Jane Burgermeister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability and BLP concerns; article has become a Coatrack for conspiracy theory claims about the involvement of living persons in some sort of alleged genocide attempts involving H1N1 vaccine. Article was apparently created by the subject. Its sources are primarily blogs and fringe websites. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jane Burgermeister exists and has a lot of reference in nature.com[1] and pubmed[2]; so we can't know if everythings she says is true but she is really who sayd to be. Zioalex (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)— Zioalex (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I never recommend listening to crazy people, unfortunately, lot of people are listening to her. I added a bunch of references that I found, chock full of conspiracy goodness. Have fun. SilverserenC 00:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This article...a collection of non-notable, unverified information"=article is all of six sentences, two of which mention the one case (the first one being the introductory sentence). More "reliable sources" may have decided they prefer to get a paycheck. I expect this article to be deleted and some time in the next two years, re-appear as her name is provided in books so the MSM avoidance will not be an issue. She is not a hoax as can be seen from her previous writings in Nature etc.163.1.147.64 (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: my understanding is that private prosecutions are rare and difficult to initiate. WP:REDFLAG would therefore apply. "File numbers … from the Austrian Police" would only indicate that an investigation has been initiated, not that charges have been laid (the latter would necessitate a case number from the Austrian courts, not from the police). I see no evidence that any court has accepted these criminal charges. Regardless there remains the problem that no reliable third party coverage means no notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above comments by 82.35.112.32 refer to anything covered by policies and guidelines for deletion. The orginal nom questioned notability and BLP concerns as well as noting coatrack. BLP concerns and coatracks in themselves are not reasons for deletions, although I agree with the nom n that coatracks (see "But it's true") are unbalanced and this at present can be said to be true about this article. Is she notable for having done what she has done is the real question, everything else is "fixable" if we find that she is.86.3.142.2 (talk) 08:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, we already have a "if you have come here from another site" notice up, that is not a reason for deletion, the only reason you provide is that you "do no think this person should have an article".
What "Wiki watcher" actually said was "Russell’s article seems safe, though Jane Burgermeister’s is ‘the dock’ for deletion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Blaylock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....germeister"
That is as a response to an article by Drs. Russell Blaylock and Joseph Mercola, one could say "so and so is talking about this deletion" when they only provided a link but I personally would infer they are just surprised "consensus" hasn't already deleted Blaylock's article.86.3.142.2 (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(i) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a very poor argument for keeping. (ii) I wouldn't be surprised if Russell Blaylock gets AfDed as well (it's already been posted to WP:FTN). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you read and understood what I wrote, you'd appreciate I wasn't making an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I was commenting on the user's lack of deletion rationale. Google scholar seems to come up with a fair decent amount of articles in known Medical Journals for Blaylock.86.3.142.2 (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2009 (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.
  1. ^ http://www.nature.com/search/executeSearch?sp-q=Jane+Burgermeister&sp-p=all&sp-c=25&sp-m=0&sp-s=date_descending&include-collections=journals_nature%2Ccrawled_content&exclude-collections=journals_palgrave%2Clab_animal&sp-a=sp1001702d&sp-sfvl-field=subject%7Cujournal&sp-x-1=ujournal&sp-p-1=phrase&submit=go
  2. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=search&term=Burgermeister+J
Category