Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Lawson (author)


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

David Lawson (author)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Author of two self-published books ( cf. http://isbndb.com/d/publisher/scrambling_news.html ). No other claim to notability. Tagishsimon (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Possibly from the same stable as Articles for deletion/Gang Stalking Controversy and Articles for deletion/Gang stalking. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've no principled objection to self-published books: I'm the contented purchaser of several. But there are self-published books and self-published books. This stuff sounds as if it would be tremendously newsworthy ... if, that is, there were anything to it. But Google News tells me: Your search - "david lawson" stalking - did not match any documents. And so I infer that there's nothing much to it. Therefore delete. (Incidentally, the earlier AfD on "Gang Stalking Controversy" makes for amusing reading.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. No reliable sources for his biography. Books have not been reviewed in reliable sources. Hasn't come to attention beyond fringe theory community forums. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Notability of the subject. 10% of all calls to help lines for stalking victims are complaints about gang stalking. For gang stalking victims the books of David Lawson are the most reliable source about this problem. The following text was published on the internet by lawyer Keith Labella, 64-15 Perry Avenue, Maspeth, NY 11378: "On or about October 29, 2008 I called the National Center for Victims of Crime's (NCVC) telephone help-line at 800-394-2255 and spoke to a victim advocate employee. I asked her if she was aware of gang stalking and if she offered any help. During that conversation she told me she was aware of gang stalking, but, that it was not a crime that NCVC provided any referral or help for. She also acknowledged that a large number of calls were regularly coming through the hot-line regarding gang stalking from all around the United States. Upon being asked to estimate the number of gang stalking calls she received, she said ten (10) percent of the average call volume during her shift. She also admitted that NCVC kept "tallies" on the different types of complaints it received over the hotline from victims. [...] She admitted this meant thousands of calls per month!" The problem seems to be that they won't confirm this in writing or in the media because the information that they receive is kept confidential, so it gives the impression of being "not notable" although it is becoming increasingly a big problem in society.--Gastacara (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your argument for the notability of "gang stalking" is extraordinary; but this doesn't matter as the subject here is not "gang stalking", it is instead David Lawson. Do you have any evidence for the notability of Lawson? -- Hoary (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - No coverage about this person in reliable sources to establish notability. I also looked and failed to find any significant independent coverage or critical reviews of his two books. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't find any reliable sources about this writer. While his research is interesting, he is just not notable according to our guideline. The real problem with a self-published book is that it is original research but is not peer reviewed. If anybody can't verify the sources of his research, then by definition that is not science; it is not knowledge in our society and thus is not even wrong.  I note that even fringe theories and theorists must be themselves notable. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 16 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.