Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrick Lonsdale (2nd nomination)

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 consensus to keep the article. There are some things AfD can't buy. For everything else, there's deletion review. - Mailer Diablo 04:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derrick Lonsdale

AfD 2nd Listing. Recommend delete per WP:BIO. The article makes no claim of notability. The 1st AfD had very little participation and probably should have been re-listed rather than closed. The only argument in the article's talk page for keeping this article is that there are thousands of worse stubs. That's too bad, but as per long-standing "there are worse..." arguments, let's continue the cleanup efforts - and we can begin with this one. If this guy is notable, let's see it. Otherwise, let's delete this article. Rklawton 00:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedy close - this is an entirely inappropriate nomination. If the nominator is unhappy with the recent AfD close he should use WP:DRV not this unprocedural nomination. TerriersFan 01:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - that's really funny since you were the one suggesting I post it for a 2nd AfD if I felt it deserved such. [1]

Comment - A second nomination is, as I said earlier, suitable if you still wanted to delete this article. Yomanganit has kindly made it for you. However, in your nomination you criticise the closing for which WP:DRV is the correct course. TerriersFan 01:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply - I also criticized the article, and those are the grounds for the 2nd AfD. Rklawton 01:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. If there is a problem with the article, fix it. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment The problem is that the guy isn't notable, and that's not something that can be fixed. Rklawton 01:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I made this a second nomination and moved the original nom back to its own page, as otherwise it was a right mess. Yomangani^talk 01:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The copyvio text indicated that the subject authored a prolific number of scholarly papers. I am not comfortable with removal unless that is shown to be inaccurate. The article does certainly need to be improved, though. Luckily, we have templates for that. Erechtheus 01:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't know what the policy is, but I believe that AfD's closed with a No Consensus To Delete may be tried again, as opposed to those with an actual Keep which either need to go to deletion review or else to wait a few months before trying again. That said, I don't think its very good form to immediately go right back to AfD. But its "legal" as far as I know. The problem with the guy's article is that it was apparantly copyvio, so I had to cut it back to almost nothing. But I think that it's possible that he may be slightly notable as some kind alternative-medicine guy. I thought he had written a book, but I guess not, as it's not listed in the article. Anyway, I'm not voting. Herostratus 01:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - the book is there now. TerriersFan 01:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Are you kidding me? I don't see how this is even contested - who is this guy, and how is he notable?? --Bri 01:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - please see the references. TerriersFan 01:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - the guy is an expert in his field which can be seen from the article which is still only a stub. TerriersFan 01:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - The article never once claims that he is an "expert in his field." Such a claim is actually your own POV inference. Rklawton 01:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - the fact that he is an expert can be seen from his papers and that he is notable becuse his peers have reviewed and approved his work. TerriersFan 02:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply - you are the one concluding he is an expert, and that's POV. You'll need a source other than yourself that says he's an expert to prove your point. Find it, and I'll happily withdraw my nomination. Incidentally, simply publishing in a peer reviewed journal doesn't make someone notable. Most Ph.D.'s have done so - it's part of what they do and it does not make them notable in their field. Rklawton 02:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Take it to Deletion Review. I've looked at this article, and don't see any authoritative, reliable evidence for encyclopedic notability and would vote Delete. However, I think taking this matter to WP:DRV is the correct course for now, given the recent closure of the first AFD. Bwithh 01:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This does seem more appropriate for DRV, though my vote there would likely be relist, which brings us right back here. Given that, it starts to look like process for the sake of process. Erechtheus 02:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Question - how is deletion review appropriate for an article that wasn't deleted? Rklawton 02:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. WP:DRV reviews the outcome of AfDs. I actually have an AfD resulting in a keep by the closing admin that is being reviewed right now. Erechtheus 02:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

*Comment - The nominator has now removed the references from the article. This is ridiculous behaviour. TerriersFan 02:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Reply - I have removed no references from this article. None. I did remove a POV comment that was not supported by the reference cited. However, I left the reference and made the appropriate notation in the article's talk page. Rklawton 02:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Based on the article and Google hits, no more notable than many/most physicians/medical practitioners (checked it against my own GP, for example, who actually has more G-hits...). Robertissimo 02:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - if your GP has written over 100 published papers, several books, run medical studies, sat on expert committees etc then he needs an article :-) TerriersFan 03:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply - First, the only reference I've seen to 100 papers is something he's published on his own website. Second, the "favorably reviewed" "paper" wasn't published in a peer review journal. So where is this so-called "review"? Third, my insurance doesn't cover "alternative medicine". Lastly, and most significantly, where, aside from your own high praise, has anyone (other than the subject himself) published anything stating he's an "expert" or otherwise notable? Rklawton 03:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Hmm, calm down you two :-) Taking everything together, I am happy enough that he is an expert in his field. The fact that it is 'alternative medicine' shouldn't count against him, in my view. I would also add the point - why would we want to exclude him? Does his inclusion harm Wikipedia bearing in mind that rappers who have released two CDs get in? I have nothing against rappers BTW, I am just making the point that Wikipedia is a broad church. BlueValour 04:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• weak delete I'm not really sold either way on this one but I'd like to point out a few things. First, 100 papers for an 80 year old academic, while certainly worth a mention, is not that exceptional and highly depends on what you call "a paper". Since that claim is taken from a source which is most definitely not independent of the subject, we just have to assume that this is perhaps a bit generous. Secondly, an academics' job is to conduct studies, publish papers and sit on expert committees so it would take more than the current claims that he did those things to convince me. I'm not saying this man is not a renowned expert in his field but simply that the evidence given in the article is pretty flimsy right now. Pascal.Tesson 06:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• WP:CHILL, then Take it to Deletion Review It's too soon for a second nom. Besides, the closing admin did give instructions to cut out the copyvio portions, so unless you're gonna contest the close at DRV, that change should probably happen first before a re-nom is in order.--Roninbk 07:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The man is somewhat controversial in autism circles, and is thus worthy of mention. It would be nice if Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicine could collaborate on this one, but I understand that project is presently inactive. -- SwissCelt 12:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Just not sufficiently notable, in a field where it doesn't take much to be notable. Legis 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. With such a common surname, it's hard to work out which contributions are his in a Medline search; however Lonsdale's work on nutrition in autism and on thiamine in sudden infant deaths do seem notable. There appear to be significant problems with the current article (eg ref 8 is not about the thiamine study) which should be fixed. Espresso Addict 15:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - thank you, I have fixed that point. Do you have a reference for his SIDS work, please? TerriersFan 16:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Actually it looks like the particular papers I saw cited were sudden deaths in general, not just SIDS:

Lonsdale D. Thiamine deficiency and sudden deaths. Lancet. 1990 Aug 11;336(8711):376.

Lonsdale D. Erythrocyte transketolase activity and sudden infant death. Am J Clin Nutr. 1981 Oct;34(10):2326-7.

Lonsdale D, Shamberger RJ. Red cell transketolase as an indicator of nutritional deficiency. Am J Clin Nutr. 1980 Feb;33(2):205-11.

Cited eg Thiamine deficiency and its prevention and control in major emergencies, World Health Organization, 1999

• Thank you again, I have added these references. The article now needs analysis and commentary to link and explain the references with some reasonably flowing text, to move it from being a stub. I shall do this if it survives the AfD. TerriersFan 18:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment this looks like a good time to WP:CHILL and revisit the AfD in another 60-90 days. There are alot of refs and papers, but the case for WP:BIO is exceedingly weak. Still taking some time to be WP:COOL would be helpful before continuing this discussion.--Isotope23 20:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this is a puzzling AfD. The guy is plainly notable. Fellow of two professional bodies, author of 3 books (1 controversial), held a senior position at the third best hospital in the USA and undoubtedly an expert in his field as sbown by the independent citing of his papers, and he has done controversial work on autism. Why delete him? The article is better sourced than any other I have seen. If someone comes to Wikipedia looking for info on the guy why shouldn't they find it? As I say, puzzling. Bridgeplayer 22:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think that 944 google-hits means he is notable. 11kowrom 22:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep: There is plenty of reason to believe digestive disorders and reduction of oxidative triggers contribute to autistic symptoms, so it only makes sense to keep an article about a medical professional who has published several books and scholarly articles on such pressing topics of vital interest. Ombudsman 18:06, 22 September 2006 (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.