Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hank Campbell

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. Kurykh (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Campbell[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any independent, reliable secondary sources covering Campbell in any significant way. The guy is the president of the notable advocacy group American Council on Science and Health and has a self-published website (science20.com) on the side. He wrote a book, writes opinion pieces for newspapers, and appears on cable news from time to time. However I can't find anything significant written about him by others. I believe all of the cited sources were written by Campbell himself, or by his organization. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, based on published work and news appearances, but article needs work to more concretely demonstrate notability.RudyLucius (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do we concrete demonstrate notability as you suggest if there are no reliable, independent secondary sources with substantial coverage of Campbell? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting a completely unsubstantiated personal attack on another editor. "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are impermissible personal attacks. Neutrality^talk 20:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This looks more agenda-based than anything. I looked at the argument Dr. Fleischman made and his other edits and it seems more like a grievance with an organization subject joined after creating science 2.0, which has been around since 2006. If an editor removes someone from existence on a page, and suddenly that is the reason to delete an entire entry, it looks like an incredible coincidence. Also, looking through the edits history on the wp science 2.0 page he was removed at around the time he joined a new group which Dr. Fleischman also seems to now want banned. I created this page and various others in science media and entertainment, that's why i got the email about it. Perfectommy (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't follow, but this sort of unsubstantiated COI accusation seems inappropriate for an AfD. I suggest this content be collapsed. If Perfectommy really wants to press the issue then, as my user page suggests I welcome them to discuss it with me on my user talk or take it to WP:COIN. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please also warn Dr. Fleischman about personal attacks as well, since he began his criticism of the article that way. At this point, his conduct is so conspiratorial the wp community has no way to know if this warning was not generated by him. Perfectommy (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He does seem fairly notable, having written for the Wall Street Journal, Wired and USA Today and appeared on Fox News. His book was also pretty successful.2602:30A:2ED1:2EE0:141C:9E8B:6F41:2A29 (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wouldn't mind seeing some commentary by more experienced editors before this AfD is closed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete – Okay DrFleischman, a !vote from a more experienced editor who was just about to relist this AfD. ~~I concur with the other two !votes and somewhere within a field of 6,140 Google News results should be evidence of WP:N and WP:GNG.~~ Narrowing it down we've got 1,190 results, 1,070, also books. See below for why I changed my opinion. J 947 19:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC) Modified on 00:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC) by J947 (talk · contribs).[reply]

J947, you haven't excluded the sources written by Campbell himself or by his coworkers at the American Council on Science and Health. Those are clearly not independent sources (a basic requirement of WP:N). Please re-read the AfD, which addresses this issue. We need sources about Campbell, not by him. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFleischman: There are 680 by Campbell (see here), which still leaves 400 not by him. J 947 21:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J947, please look more closely. You only counted the ones that had the words "by Hank Campbell" in them. The remaining sources are by him but do not say "by Hank Campbell," or they are by his co-workers at the ACSH, or they are published on his science20.com website, or they are otherwise unreliable, or they do not include significant coverage about him. If you can find a single source that meets our criteria then I would very much appreciate it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFleischman: This and this eliminate it down to 70, and this down to 60. On books it gets down to 55 (see here). This takes it down to 50. Here's one ([1]) and another ([2]), another ([3]), and another ([4]), that don't meet your criteria shown above but at least are secondary sources independent of the subject. I'll take another look later. J 947 23:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any so I've changed my !vote. J 947 00:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as nom). I do not see how we cross the notability threshold unless/until someone identifies reliable, independent secondary sources about Campbell, rather than by him or his organizations (science20.com or the American Council on Science and Health). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, if anyone finds such sources then I will gladly change my !vote and/or withdraw the AfD. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — at best he's a director of a right-wing lobbyist/think-tank organization; the organization might be notable; he otherwise is not. Appears to have hijacked the concept article of Science 2.0 by simply creating the domain name and sticking a blog on it; now this article refers to that site by bluelinking from references (as if the site == the article linked). --slakr^\ talk / 03:47, 9 March 2017 (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.