Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Best


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Ben Best

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article appears to have been created and maintained by individuals with a close connection with the subject. When looking for sources, I find namechecks as a spokesperson for the Cryonics Institute but nothing substantive about him, outside the walled garden of cryonics websites (which are unreliable as they do not follow a reality-based view of the field). He may be considered important within the tiny world of cryonics, but that world is so small and so fringe that it does not look as if he's made any impression more widely, so fails WP:GNG. Guy (help!) 09:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as it stands - a quick WP:BEFORE shows overwhelmingly the writer and actor Ben Best (and not so much on him either - his article, Ben Best (screenwriter), was PRODed a year ago), with this Ben Best being represented by Wikipedia mirrors. I'll be happy to be shown wrong, but it's gonna take actual RS coverage to have anything to base a BLP on. It's possible he's had academic referencing too, though likely low-quality - David Gerard (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep notable for being the CEO of the Cryonics Institute. I find that there are sources available. If I have more time I will ferret them out. Wm335td (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete While I may with time be able to show notability of this person, the article has been tainted by the subject editing an article about himself. If it is not salted perhaps it can be recreated by an UE when enough RS presents itself. Wm335td (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Being the CEO of a minor ex-charity doesn't seem to pass notability guidelines. Do you have RSes that show GNG at least? We literally don't have the RSes to write a WP:BLP from - David Gerard (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Long history of this person trying to promote themselves on Wikipedia. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I admittedly started this page about 15 years ago, but I have not edited it since 2006. Please give citations to support your claim that I have otherwise engaged in self-promotion on Wikipedia. --Ben Best:Talk 20:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I really love Wikipedia and deeply regret that there are nasty people involved, including you and David Gerard. An examination of my editing contributions and articles created will clearly show that I engage in enhancing the scientific content of Wikipedia, without self-promotion. --Ben Best:Talk 03:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * still has not given any evidence for his claim that I have engaged in self-promotion on Wikipedia other than having started the entry about myself in 2005. An earlier version of this article had many reliable third-party citations, compared to the current article, many of which were deleted by . I disagree that the article should be deleted on grounds of notability (based in part of the deleted valid references), but I am accepting of the idea that the entry should be deleted on the grounds that I started the article myself. --Ben Best:Talk 19:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Benbest what you mentioned was what I was referring to. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete paucity of sources. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 11:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete creating articles on oneself inherently violates the policies of Wikipedia. Sadly we did not enforce these policies back in 2005, but that is no reason we should tolerate the continuance of undersourced articles today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNG. He was not notable in 2006, but we let a lot slide in those days. For example, I created an article about a child actor, but agreed to its deletion in 2019. Also, in 2020, every editor should know the rules, including that we are not a free web-host. I can see that the grief is real. Please, everybody, assume good faith. has a good reputation for being calm and reasonable, and I thank  for his many contributions. A neutral observer can see that the references are all primary sources, such as a conference report. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Two Questions As an occasional reader and editor of Wikipedia articles related to cryonics, it's not clear to me that the small size of cryonics is relevant to the question of notability. Cryonicists will love the comparison, but the Westboro Baptist Church comes to mind. It's about as fringe and unpopular as you can get, but the church is "notable" because, like cryonics, the outrageousness of it generates media coverage and public attention despite the small number of adherents. A person like Shirley Phelps-Roper is the subject of a Wikipedia article only because of involvement with this fringe church. Ben Best is a substantial fish in the fringe but similarly notable pond of cryonics. As the successor of cryonics founder Robert Ettinger as head of the Cryonics Institute, Best would have been named or quoted in a large fraction of media coverage of cryonics during his tenure. Without paying for a news archive search, a few examples I easily found are The New Yorker, The Guardian, and The Atlantic which mentions that Best was the subject of the cryonics documentary We Will Live Again. Excluding 32 academic citations of his own 2008 journal article about cryonics, Google Scholar finds mentions of Ben Best or his other writings in several mainstream journal articles about cryonics, including Southwestern University Law Review, Engineering and Technology, and this and this twin articles in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. Google Books also finds Best's involvement in cryonics mentioned in books, including The Book of Immortality: The Science, Belief, and Magic Behind Living Forever that discloses Best's cryonics-related inclusion in a documentary about the life of Frank Cole. Particularly relevant to the question of notability within cryonics, The Whole Death Catalog calls Ben Best's website, "The single most comprehensive online source for information about cryonics." My question is, given that all the "Delete" recommendations so far have been based on the present article stub containing almost no sources, and the fact that many editors feel that Best's original creation of the article himself back in 2005 is itself grounds for deletion regardless of sourcing, is there any point to adding reliable sources now? My other question is, if the article is deleted because of its present poor sourcing or illicit origination, could someone else like me recreate it with proper sourcing for renewed scrutiny as an article that was not created by its subject? Cryobiologist (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2020 (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.