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 of the debate was DELETE. There does seem to be a case here of soapboxing fairly stridently and I think the walled garden suggestions are close to the mark, having also read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boyd Haley and its associated article. It is possible that a former chief scientific officer to the Dept. of Health would survive an AfD (though not certain, perhaps, since it's non-ministerial, non-elected, and non-political) but this article as is is absolutely without a doubt being used for advocacy, no matter the attempts made at advocacy-by-quote. It is full of irrelevant attacks on other scientists (it almost gets to speedy territory: "The UK medical establishment including the Department of Health regard Wakefield’s claims as junk science lacking substance", without any citation). Those editing this debate who do not seem to have some serious vested interests (including both Ombudsman and the nominator) seem to lean clearly towards deletion (including, notably, Capitalistroadster). I don't give the "two more will pop up" argument any weight in determining what to do with this article, and it's readily apparent that Leifern has turned up mainly to be unpleasant (he doesn't make even a tangential reference to the article). So it's a delete-without-prejudice to a proper, non-soapboxed, genuine article that makes the case for the notability of its subject without leaping into the very shady territory this article inhabits. -Splash^talk 23:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV non WP:BIO. Not encyclopaedic. There are very very many retired civil service doctors in England and the only thing adduced about him is that he was to have been one witness in a trial which will not occur since the legal aid board determined it had no chance at all of success. Basically this is yet another attack page on immunisation presented as a biography - possibly we should decide that these are speedy delete candidates. DELETE Midgley 10:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable. Part of one user's walled garden on antivaccination activism. JFW | T@lk 12:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Of course, persistent attempts at stifling articles that don't fit in with the concrete jungle orthodoxy of mainstream medicine are inconsistent with the Wiki's aim of building a comprehensive encyclopedia. If anything, the offhand dismissal of a respected authority on the safety and efficacy of vaccines with comments like the above can be likened to Trantor's imperial garden, envisioned by Isaac Asimov as the only patch of green to be found on the ecumenopolis. Asimov underscored his point by postulating twenty agricultural worlds to support Trantor. Ombudsman 05:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What on earth does Asimov have to do with this, apart from the science fiction? JFW | T@lk 05:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps it is an predicted by Hari Seldon tp attempt to suggest that the article is not without Foundation, even if it is part of an empire. Asimov would be quite clear on this stuff, and straightforward about condeming its author - he was a good scientist as well as golden age SF writer. Midgley 21:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, perhaps you two might to be willing to begin discussing the actual science after all. Doubts about that aside, the analogy above was offered as an attempt to get you two to see that paving over the Wiki with the preservative-laden spam of medical establishment dogma necessitates all the more, in a co-evolutionary sense, the need to protect the wilderness of medical dissent, lest the Wiki might end up needing to outsource remedies for the lack of content oriented to mere carbon based life forms. Beyond the Wiki, the predominance of such spam can be traced, in part, to the economic inequities and intellectual iniquities caused by the conspiculous conflict of interest consequences deriving from the fact that big pharma now has a cash flow of over a trillion dollars a year, and profit margins that even illicit drug cartels would envy. Asimov, like the 'humble' Imperial garden caretaker and Fletcher, never seemed to be hamstrung by such conflicts. Asimov wrote hundreds of academic texts, many dealing with biochemistry, and his depiction of Trantor evidences his intuitive understanding of systems biology. At the macro systems level, Asimov recognized Trantor's unlikely capacity for supporting an inordinately large population, and that the concrete and steel straightjacketed seat of a galactic empire would necessitate the outsourcing of agricultural support from twenty worlds. At the micro level, there is a verisimilitude with the compound cumulative effects of vaccines, which a number of scientists have shown to be inextricably associated with neotenized neurological development -- short on carbon based compounds and long on alkaline metallic compounds, resulting in the overbuild of relatively simple neurological infrastructures at the expense of the complex enzyme mediated superstructure necessary for a more normal sequencing of neurodevelopmental events. Asimov would understand that, just as he would understand that what you two have been doing, by substituting the gracile spam of orthodox dogma in the place of robust content on the scientific insights of dissenters, is tantamount to injecting the Wiki with the equivalent of adjuvants that, if unchecked, would cause the equivalent of arrested, neotenous neurodevelopment which is characteristic of autistic spectrum disorders. Say what you will, but Asimov would look askance at this AfD, just as he would look the same way at the deletionism that you two relentlessly push, and he might even compare your efforts to the lead-poisoned elite of the Roman Empire, upon whom he modeled the rulers of the decadent Trantor. No small irony there, given the poisonous effects of heavy metals. Indeed, Asimov portrayed the Imperial garden caretaker in reverential terms, and undoubtedly would have compared Fletcher with the gardener. Ombudsman 00:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's very ... wrong. Midgley 01:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trantor had to fall (if only to allow for a trilogy). For it to do so, Asimov made it depend upon shipping in of food (the sums really don't add up) It is a plot device. Real life is less pliable, and in particular, causes do not derive from the result desired. For more dicussion of the narrative nature of reality/life see Terry Pratchett. But perhaps not here... Midgley 02:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Added comment: searching PubMed for "Fletcher P vaccine" gives no results. Googling for the same combination only results in hits from blogs describing his testimony. Do we need a page on every person who ever testified for an English court? Some may characterise him as "eminent scientist and high ranking authority on vaccines", but this is not quite borne out by generally used indicators. Oh, and since when has the autism epidemic spanned the globe, and what is the source of the statistic that "untold thousands of UK children [who] have become autistic and developed autistic enterocolitis"? JFW | T@lk 19:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The above could be construed as misleading example of how to use a search engine. Try searching for '"Peter Fletcher" vaccine'. Ombudsman 17:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The above could also be construed as someone who knows how to search Pubmed, where authors are Surname initial. There are a lot of non-authoritative and unreliable hits in Google, but they don't each add new and different infroamtion, it is just promiscuous reduplication. Midgley 14:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Ombudsman's patronising attitude is typical. I'm better at searching medline and google than you, Ombi. Really. And using the quotes had occurred to me. In fact, your search yields 384 results, all from secondary sources and none giving proof that Fletcher has published anything of use in the field of vaccination. Since his testimony he's an "expert". This article could be construed as a typical example of your walled garden, which is why it will probably be deleted. JFW | T@lk 14:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 13:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep: An eminent scientist and high ranking authority on vaccines, Fletcher has shattered the illusion that the medical establishment is united in its refusal to acknowledge culpability for triggering an autism epidemic that spans the globe. For political and economic reasons, other medical authorities have been entirely unable to regognize and acknowledge the global catastrophe caused by vaccine injuries. Simply because the bulk of Fletcher's career predates the advent of the internet, there is no reason to assume his contributions to medical science are anything less than extremely noteworthy. Fletcher is noteworthy not only for the prestigious position he once held overseeing vaccine policy in the UK, but also for breaking ranks with medical authorities loudly and clearly as an expert on vaccine issues, and his statements have been reported around the world. Beyond that, he was chosen as an expert witness and played a primary role in the high profile UK lawsuit on behalf of the untold thousands of UK children who have become autistic and developed autistic enterocolitis following vaccination. He presented reports, inexplicably ignored by the court in its decision to derail the litigation, that supported the clinical evidence and observations by thousands of parents "that a triple vaccine (MMR) was causally related to the damage suffered by the children." Fletcher has been quoted widely by journalists around the world who have covered the vaccine controversy. Ironically, Midgley himself has said the only thing that he dismisses about the case presented on behalf of the children and their parents had to do with conflict of interest concerns.[1] However, the only expert testimony in the case where such concerns could easily be dismissed would be that of a retired vaccine expert and recognized authority, such as Fletcher. Ombudsman 18:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ombudsman is misrepresenting me in his polemic above, not for the first time, and I do suggest anyone who is tempted to take any part of it seriously read the actual comment I made in the BMJ Rabid Responses and consider whether this is part of a pattern of which this article is another part.

  If there had been any intent to mislead, a link leading to your comment allowing readers to judge for themselves would not have been provided. Indeed, your statement suggests that you dismiss everything about the arguments presented by Fletcher and the legal team representing the families as polemical. Ombudsman 17:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Pray tell, to what were you referring? Your BMJ rapid response seemed to be addressing the the topic at hand. There was no intent to mislead, despite what you have tried to imply with your diversionary interjection, though any misunderstanding of your BMJ response simply would stem from the fact that interpreting your comments is often quite difficult. Ombudsman 18:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have not the slightest doubt that this was an attempt to mislead. I suggestt hat anyone in doubt looks at the reference, not at Ombod's interpretation of it. There is no point discussing this further here. Midgley 19:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there had been any intent to mislead, a link leading to your comment allowing readers to judge for themselves would not have been provided. Indeed, your statement suggests that you dismiss everything about the arguments presented by Fletcher and the legal team representing the families as polemical. Ombudsman 17:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment One of the things about courts, at least English courts, is that very little of what they do is inexplicable. Hardly any of it is even unexplained. It isn't always trivial to obtain the actual text of the explanation, but it is perfectly clear here that the Legal Aid Board had the opportunity to consider Dr Fletcher's comments, and decided, in the light of that and the other avaialable elements of the case the bringing of which was proposed, that the case was hopeless - hence their explicable decision to not fund it further. That case has been funded IIRC to around £10M from public funds already, and I think that it was reasonable to pay to bring such concerns to law, but it is not reasonable to go on and on and on. Midgley 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Ombudsman has edited my comment here[2] on this page. This is improper. Midgley 19:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd give the benefit of the doubt here; it may have been an edit conflict. JFW | T@lk 19:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't, it was deliberate and a reason given in the comment to the edit. He didn't like the comment about the possible identity of one of the posters to BMJ Rapid Responses. Midgley 23:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of misdirection by Midgley, as the comment included a link provided to allow readers to judge for themselves, but here is Midgley's full statement addressing the topic at hand, "Parents claiming a link between MMR vaccine and autism lose final appeal for legal aid," which Midgley seemed to be addressing: The only thing that I don't understand or cannot dismiss instantly in the polemic presented as a response above is this:- "Competing interests: Close relative with life threatening food allergy." Is this a claim that mixed vaccines cause food allergy? Ombudsman 17:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is, characteristically, not the case, and is also characteristically, not germane to the page in question, which should be deleted. I object to Ombusdamn's repeated lies about me. Midgley 21:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not sufficiently notable per WP:BIO, part of POV editing campaign in violation of WP:NOT a forum for advocacy. I'm afraid the "rapid response" includes some "rabid response". Barno 20:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This page appears to be little more than a paraphrase of this newspaper article [3] (or perhaps some of the opinion comment based on that article), and appears to contain little biographical information beyond that available in that page. In fact, there is more biographical information in that newspaper article than on Peter Fletcher (for example, he was Chief Scientific Officer in the 1970s). Further, the original text of the page is extremely emotive (e.g., "In early 2006, Fletcher reignited the smoldering MMR vaccine debate", "political firestorm"), and seems incongruous with the evidence. The Daily Mail article was published on February 5, and appears to have triggered fewer than 10 other articles in a month [4], which does not fit with "reigniting" a debate. --Limegreen 22:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted above, Fletcher's career pretty much predated the internet, so the article was originally, and will be, a little more difficult to flesh out. Ombudsman 17:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • His career certainly did pre-date the internet. However, while it's possible that there is no information on the web about him is because of that, it could also be because he was not particularly notable. One of those news articles suggests his tenure with the Department of Health was not very long. Perhaps the best defence you could make for this article would be to find some actual biographical information and evidence of notability. If he is notable, 20 minutes in a public library should demonstrate that. --Limegreen 22:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete according to WP:BIO. If kept, should be rewritten according to NPOV. Capitalistroadster 01:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Barno. AED 07:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. While the tone of the article is POV, he is as notable as many of the individuals listed on vaccine controversy. (Granted many of these individuals themselves aren't that notable either.) Andrew73 12:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps either the cast list should be on that page, or there should be a list of such people with a brief note against each of why their involvement ins interesting, and a brief note on the page of the comon features. As given thus far, the former notes would be very short, and the latter could be quite short as well, not least since it would not need to repeat the contents of the other pages. I know WP is not hierarchical, but these people have not been presented as articles about individuals, rather as examples of a corps. My own stylistic preference is actually for a little box to one side of a page or section, giving the capsule for a person referred to. It is a very different if one wishes to discuss his scholarly papers, taste in Claret, role in medical service development, the furniture in his restored Georgian house in the Home COunties, the difficulties of financing a listed building or civil service pensions none of which instances are at all specifically relevant here.Midgley 14:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Might as well keep it, since two more just like it will pop up in its place; thought I'd come back for one last edit.... Fletcher is not notable. This article is just another attempt by Ombudsman to spread more anti-immunisation idiocy around wikipedia. WHY hasn't Ombudsman been banned for using wikipedia as a soapbox? Ombudsman is just as bad as John Gohde (who will be back in little over a month after his year-long ban, what fun!), but Ombudsman makes admirable use of a thesaurus, and he's certainly got his foot in the door now with his countless POV edits on vaccine conspiracies/autism conspiracies/9-11 conspiracies/you-name-it conspiracies. DocJohnny's already gone, and why am I leaving instead of Ombudsman? --CDN99 18:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't go. TO be fair though a senior civil servant could be notable. WHat is clear is that he is not notable for anything listed in the article, IE the article is not about him, nor is it to inform. I think Ombudsman is the antithesis of an encyclopedia autor, and although the WP credo offers a hope that by uniting thesis and antithesis we might achieve synthesis, I think it would be simpler and more effective to dispense with Ombudsman. Forthwith. Admins? Midgley 13:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ombudsman has for the second time in this discussion edited another user's comment. Is there any sanction that can be aplied over this? Midgley 14:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the delete, which included a comment of his own:-

  • Aside Clifford Miller whose comments are in the BMJ rapid - but not published - responses referred to above, and who I had commented on, is one of the candidates for being the User:86.10.231.219 whose contributions and history are somewhat consistent with that idea and whose IP address is geographically adjacent to the address Mr Miller gives. (He is probably not notable, but is certainly persistent. Unaccountably, the college he examined in law at had forgotten him when I enquired of them, but I do not for a moment doubt that if they searched all their records they would eventually find him.)Midgley 18:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Restored after Ombudsman edited my comment into something he preferred to respond to. (A damnable liberty!)Midgley 22:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC) + Restored againMidgley 14:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've seen Wikipedia articles for people who own ad agencies, not to mention creators of favorite anime. The bar for who is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia is not all that high. This is a professor who obviously has a following. He seems to be important to supporters of alternative medicine, so mobbing on this for deletion could be considered a political/ideological action. --Pansophia 02:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a professor. As this is apparently intended to be a biographical article, and you have a source that suggests he is a professor, shouldn't that be included? --Limegreen 02:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a professor, but that may have been my fault - a momentary confusion. Midgley 02:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is just another attempt by Midgley to remove information that is inconvenient for his opinion. Midgley has been on Wikipedia a short time, but has a consistent record of personal attacks, borderline vandalism, malicious sockpuppetry and impersonation. --Leifern 13:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is ad hominem, untrue, irrelevant to this, and part of a spree Leifern has gone on using WP as a platform to attack me. Leifern, are you sober? Please see my more detailed remark on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boyd_Haley. This sort of thing is certainly against several WP policies, but is there any actual remedy to be applied in real time? I'd be obliged if any spectators would take note of the RFC on Leifern's behaviour that I shall construct. Midgley 15:15, 12 March 2006 (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.