Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Lynes (2nd nomination)


 * 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Barry Lynes
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:BIO; no evidence of notability in intellectually independent, reliable secondary sources. The only available reliable source is a brief mention by the American Cancer Society, which dismissed Lynes' book as overwrought conspiracism. The prior AfD was closed as no consensus (which I think was a bit generous), on the basis of claimed Google Books hits. In the intervening years, there has been no progress toward actually incorporating any independent, reliable sources. At this point the article has had years to be brought up to our notability criteria and hasn't been (I don't think it can be, given the lack of suitable sources), and thus I'm bringing it back here. MastCell Talk 21:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 02:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. While this is a very close call, in my opinion Barry Lynes meets WP:AUTHOR. One of the criteria by which WP:AUTHOR can be met is if the person wrote a book that was "subject ... of multiple independent ... reviews." I can several independent reviews, for example: . Another way the notablity requirement can be met is if "the person is known for originating a significant new ... theory" - and I believe this requirement has been met. Although, again, this is only narrowly met, a Google books search shows a book saying that "The Rife Report by Barry Lynes [is] investigative journalism at its best" and the comments by the American Cancer Society show that his theory has gained some significant coverage. -  EdoDodo  talk 20:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Lynes did not originate any new theories (he resurrected the long-since-discredited claims of Royal Rife). His work has not been the subject of multiple independent reviews by independent, reliable sources (the only reliably sourced review is from the American Cancer Society). MastCell Talk 22:49, 19 June 2011 (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.