Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Lynes


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 02:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Barry Lynes

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The alert that this particular author seems to lack notability has been up since July. I tend to concur with the sentiment, but would like some community input. There seems to be an active community of internet denizens hoping to maintain the guru status of this and Royal Rife, but I do not believe that they are able to drum up enough third-party independent sources (say mainstream media mention) that is required for such articles. Publishing in "Cover Up" true-believing bully-rag is not good enough. I will grant that his book received two unfavorable reviews from the American Cancer Society and The ACAHF, but the relevant reviews are more about Rife than about the book itself or Lynes. Perhaps a few sentences can be maintained in the article about Royal Rife, but having this separate article here certainly seems to violate WP:BIO. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Essentially per the nomination. The reliable sources come down to 2 passing (negative) mentions by the American Cancer Society and the Syndney Morning Herald. Both are more concerned with "Rife devices" than with Lynes. I think we can handle this fairly trivial level of notability with a line in the Royal Rife article - there doesn't seem to be enough here to meet WP:BIO for an independent article. MastCell Talk 07:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Never heard of this guy or Royal Rife either. But, 12 books! The fact that the American Cancer Society bothered to unfavorably review his book is significant -- they think he's notable. Even crackpots can be notable and the fact that crackpots have fans should neither help nor hurt in deciding if notable. Perhaps flag to make sure it stays NPOV. RoyLeban (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge with or mention in the Rife article, if he's notable at all it's as an advocate of Rife and his ridiculous beliefs.--Mongreilf (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename article to be about his book The Cancer Cure That Worked. Most of the references in the article are about this book. The book had a full article until MastCell changed it to a redirect to Lynes's bio. The book was notable enough to be debunked by one science journal and organizations on two continents, and this happened in the early 90's so the internet record is bound to be spotty. Xasodfuih (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * N.B.: I'm not implying that MastCell did something wrong. His bio and the article about the book overlap considerably. Xasodfuih (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merging the paragraph about the book to Royal_Rife should work as well. Xasodfuih (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete A passing mention in Royal Rife is at least as much as is indicated by these sources. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Royal Rife, who is notable beyond dispute. Doesn't mean that this modern version is. Moreschi (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Definite keep. Subject has developed his own notability per guidelines beyond any involvement with Rife. Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News, straight Google. His notability is his... for good or bad... and he does not need become a footnote in an article about someone else.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally don't see a whole lot in those Google searches that will enable the creation of a neutral, encyclopedic biography. Am I missing something? Is there non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources out there? All I see is a few disparaging sentences from the American Cancer Society, and a bunch of books published by an obscure specialty publisher than seems to focus on cancer conspiracy theories. MastCell Talk 04:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't know anything about Royal Rife but basic research about this person shows that he is notable enough for an article, with sufficient coverage in verifiable sources, and as the author of 14 books. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2009 (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.