Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Chernin

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 was Delete per consensus and taking into account meatpuppetry.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Chernin

Dennis Chernin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

After doing a Google news search and a Google Scholar search, I don't really find anything notable on Dennis Chernin. There isn't a single source except for his own website. The article reads more like a resume than an encyclopedic article. If I thought these were fixable problems, I'd fix it myself but I can't find WP:V sources. Without sources, this becomes a bit of a WP:BLP problem. He's written books but I don't find any indication that they've sold well or that they've been cited. Unless more is dug up, I'm leaning toward delete. Pigman☿ 03:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep, was able to find a couple of sources on him. For instance, he's described here as a "Noted author", and here it notes that "is the medical director of two county public health departments in Michigan (no other present homeopath holds this important position in the public health arena!)". These are not the best refs, but he seemingly is somewhat influential in the homeopathy community. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC).
  • Comment: I have to say I find it less than persuasive when his publisher calls him a "Noted author." The second instance you cited above is a bit more interesting in terms of background and content (although it's packed with promotional language because the site is selling his book). I'd still like to see something a little more about him from a WP:V source other than people who are selling his work. Pigman☿ 05:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of notability and written by an editor whose work is often found on these AfD pages. Madman (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Nothing in GoogleScholar or GoogleNews. I also searched WoS and Medline and did not find anything there either. Clearly fails WP:PROF and I don't see anything to suggest that he passes WP:BIO either. Nsk92 (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable by our established standards, just a curiosity. DGG (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • delete no evidence of the extensive coverage in independent secondary sources required to establish notability. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I've added some more material to the article, including awards hid CD-Rom has won and some references. Still looking for more. Rosencomet (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The cdbaby.com link [1] is something but it is still very weak. It is a promo page by the seller of his CD, so it does not qualify as an independent source. The two awards for the CD mentioned there, 1997 Health Information Awards and the 1997 Communicator Awards, need to be put in context and verified by an independent source. From the link given it is completely unclear what these awards are, who gives them, etc. In general, they would have to be pretty major awards to confer notability on the author rather than on the CD. Nsk92 (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - This article is notable enough. Vittala (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Vittala is NOT nor has he ever been a sock-puppet. He was mistakenly accused of it, and cleared.Rosencomet (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't seem to be notable.PelleSmith (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2008 (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.