Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Cantwell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Cantwell

Alan Cantwell is a self-published author of conspiracy theory books, is occasionally published in New Dawn (which publishes fringe theories), and back in the 1980s he published a few articles in the medical press, but under 30 publications is certainly not indicative of a significant research career. So he fails the professor test, is a self-published author (so fails the author test) but might be a valid subject as a conspiracy theorist. The no. 1 Google hit is whale.to (now vaccination.org.uk), User:Whaleto's vehement;ly anti-vaccination website, and some at least of the supposed publications are reproduced (with or without permission) on that site. Article was created by Whaleto, who also added (per his usual practice) links to his site. I would say that this is "just another crank" and not an especially notable one, but I could be wrong. Just to clarify per RayaruB below, the books on Amazon are published by Aries Rising Press; from their website: Aries Rising Press, Los Angeles. was founded in 1984 by Alan Cantwell, M.D., for the purpose of disseminating vital medical research and knowledge concerning the origin and cause of two major diseases; Cancer and AIDS. The site lists no books by any other author. These are self-published books. There are notable self-published authors, like Robert Gunther, but he is notable as the founder of the museum of science at Oxford and the driving force behind the rehabilitation of [Robert Hooke]]'s reputation, not as a self-published author. Just zis Guy you know? 11:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

  • That's a good point. However, even though they are self-published, I think the fact that several major bookstores stock them indicates that they may have an audience of 5,000 or more, which would satisfy the notability standard for people. I'd still be inclined not to delete. --RayaruB 15:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
You say "stock". I'd say "list in their catalogue - unless I saw a definite indication they were on a shelf, or in a warehouse. The Long Tail in selling books was something that Amazon made a lot from, and bricks and mortar shops are catching up on, and just in time ordering and fulfilment is one of the otehr innovations that has altered the meaning of a note that soemthing is _available_ from a book seller. Midgley 12:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He may be a "crank" but he has five books selling at Amazon with numerous reviews [1]. There are also some google scholar references [2]- in fact, almost as many as some widely loved political movements here [3]. We may not like his ideas but I can't see any reason to delete this. -- JJay 15:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Like I said, JJay, those are self-published books. Anyone can get a book listed on Amazon, and anyone can write a book review on Amazon, or even multiple reviews to astroturf something. Just zis Guy you know? 16:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, you did say that. And had Mr. Cantwell's books just been sold by some unknown website I might vote delete here. But they are sold by major booksellers. And I see Cantwell quoted in the press on AIDs or being referenced in other books [4]. Your argument regarding self-publishing is also fairly unconvincing given the vast number of articles here that use self-published papers, blog articles and chat board posts as valid references. You should know this, because you are involved in editing some of these articles. Finally, I again note that Mr. Cantwell gets 18 hits in google scholar [5], while Dominionism gets 32 [6]. Dominionism currently benefits from an article here, a number of categories, a template and some lists. You yourself have argued that dominionism is backed up by scholarly references. Therefore, I'm sure you'll agree, that Cantwell clearly deserves an article here. Call it the dominionism test. -- JJay 17:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per JJay. Seems rather notable. --Terence Ong 15:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per jjay. Seems a bit nuts, but a notable nut. Tomb Ride My Talk 16:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. john 16:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC) (article creator, user Whaleto))
  • Keep per JJay. The self-published author thing is a guideline, not a set of handcuffs. If someone actually cracks the Amazon sales ranks with several books, I don't give a rat's patootie whether the publishing company is something he founded himself. RGTraynor 16:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is it indicated how many of the books have sold? Amazon indicate they have to order half of them (2-3w), are they being printed to order? If another article is using self-published stuff and own website as a reference then there is a problem with that article, it doesn't mean it is OK for other ones. He doesn't look notable to me, but I've learned not to trust the articles out of that author to include what people are notable for, so it may be worth doing some actual research. It isn't an article that would take any length of time to replace though, is it, with a WP:BIO or whatever. Midgley 18:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Not a best-seller, or indeed one you are likely to find without an effort. Nor notable on that behalf. Delete Midgley 12:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment as JJay mentioned above which may have been overlooked, Cantwell is mentioned in other books. Amazon lists 15+; after selecting the drop-down "Books" for the search, and searching on "alan cantwell jr" you then click on "Click here to see additional results." Or follow the link for the Google Book search above. Шизомби 21:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment on notability + Weak Keep. This guy seems notable ("Alan Cantwell" "AIDS" = 32,000 hits). Clearly as mad as a bicycle, but notable. Just to clarify- having one's books listed on Amazon DOES NOT make one notable in itself. ANYONE with a chequebook can get a book into the Amazon catalogue- they have deals with numerous vanity press outfits. They may be a major bookseller, but they are not a discerning one. PS- Barring exceptional cases (like, for example, this one), almost any article that's using blogs, chat boards, and self-published papers (ie not peer-reviewed) as references is suspect. PPS- I don't know what Dominionism is either ;-) Badgerpatrol 01:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see sufficient evidence of him being notable in the article. I would want to see notable sources writing about him (not just his writings). Personally, I think a self-published book, is little better then a personal web site. It doesn't mean you're not notable, but it doesn't mean you are. The evidence of notability, needs to go in the actual article (as opposed to this AFD page). Without citing reliable sources that have been written about him in-depth, we can't really say anything neutral and reliable about him, as a person is not a neutral reliable source about themself. Currently, the article mentions no criticisms of his views. Now, that's not because there isn't criticism of these types of views. It's because nobody (worthy of citing) seems to know or care enough about him to bother directly addressing his views. So the article will never present all major perspectives fairly. But if the article is improved, I'll be happy to be proved wrong, and change my vote. --Rob 02:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep: Ombudsman 14:06, 18 April 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.