Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Job Collins

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 The result of the debate was keep Midgley 14:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William_Job_Collins

nn (there are currently 100 000 doctors practicing in the UK of whom more could be gleaned from The Medical Register than is here - "he was a doctor who worked with two other doctors, and did not use a particular treatment. His father also was a doctor and did not use that treatment". The links are to a clonelet of the author's whale.to website which has been determined by RFC to be not WP:RS - the site in question was established after whale.to ceased getting links from WP. This iswas one of many nn articles generally lacking in interest and WP:V and by User:Whaleto in pursuit of his WP:SOAPBOX WP:VSCA Midgley 09:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Talk:Measles may be thought relevant, or Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Whaleto. Certainly it indicates that we should wait at least 48 hours even if WP:SNOW were thoguht to apply. I venture to suggest that its effectiveness might also be considered, here, after that time has passed. Midgley 00:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Most notable anti-smallpox vax medical doctor along with Creighton and Crookshank. john 07:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment that description has I think been used of Bayly Beddow. They can't all be the most notable. Whether being against something makes you notable is another matter. Midgley 07:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. One of 3 most notable 19 century UK anti-vax medical men. Bayly, Mendelsohn are two most notable 20 cent. You tried to delete Mendelsohn [1]. I dispute that whale has been deemed WP:RS. john 09:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

RS means Reliable Source. Whale has been deemed Not Reliable Source. The page WP:RS is a well-constructed consensus. What anyone deems is up to them but WP attempts to run on evidence. Midgley 10:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I can read. Deemed by who? john 21:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This question has been answered previously. RFC @ MMR Midgley 22:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. That is your interpretation, to suit your POV. You are pushing your POV here as well. john 05:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:DISPUTE it then. Midgley 08:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No indication as to his notability. Will revise opinion if there are historical sources that support notability. JFW | T@lk 15:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: brief biography here: eminent ophthalmic surgeon, university don, London councillor, later Liberal MP (twice), Vice-Lieutenant of County of London. More at the Times obit for Saturday, Dec 14, 1946. Definitely notable, but not, as the current version portrays it, solely (or even principally) for opposition to vaccination. Tearlach 00:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - forgot to log in, but I've expanded it into a proper biography. Tearlach 12:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You sir are a scholar, and this is an article. Keep of course. Midgley 13:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Can I close this? Seems reasonable.

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.