Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Colbert


 * 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Don Colbert

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not one source. Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. I was just thinking the same thing. I can't find any reliable source for him, let alone enough to qualify an article. I wonder if it's snowy enough for maybe even an A7 speedy? ItsPugle (please use &#123;&#123;reply|ItsPugle}}) 13:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete for notability, and almost trumpy hair. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 13:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Roxy, I admire your work on Wikipedia, but rude comments about the subject's physical appearance have no place in a deletion discussion. --Krelnik (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I admire your work too, but only now have discovered your name is Krelnik!! -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 05:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment come on now, "not one source"? There are three NYTimes articles linked in the article, and even a casual look on newspapers.com for instance comes up with lots of articles about him. Here's one but I see them in papers all over the country, and not just on the religion pages. Now admittedly, most of these articles are tied around whatever book hew as promoting at the time, but that's part of this guy's business. I vehemently disagree this is a SNOW situation, you guys need to put aside your distaste for this guy's business and actually do a real WP:BEFORE, not just a casual Google. I don't like what this guy's selling either, but he's out there in the world and is notable. --Krelnik (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No inline citations, and a one sentence mention a source does not make.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I will admit SNOW or an A7 is jumping the gun, but there's barely any coverage about this guy, let alone enough (or really, any) reliable sourcesto qualify an article. Plus, all of his existence seems to be only in the US; I'd never heard of him over here in Australia before today. ItsPugle (please use &#123;&#123;reply|ItsPugle}}) 14:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Now admittedly, most of these articles are tied around whatever book hew as promoting at the time, but that's part of this guy's business. His sales promotion tactics can not be considered appropriate references, or in themselves as being notable.Ali Beatriz (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - should have been deleted as an advert when first created, and there are vanishingly few sources from which to make it anything else. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep there are public service reasons for having out-of-universe encyclopaedia entries for quacks. The three different NYT articles should indicate some level of notability. GPinkerton (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They all literally say "and he has published this book". That is trivial coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm also not aware of any WP policy that would mean we should keep an article on a non-notable, fringe physician based on "public service reasons". Any coverage is about his books (they're also all in short promotional bursts), there's no reliable sources about him personally. ItsPugle (please use &#123;&#123;reply|ItsPugle}}) 14:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I found two better sources with mere minutes of work on newspapers.com and have added them to the article. --Krelnik (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete a clear violation of our guidelines on fringe academics. Just because coverage is in the NYT does not mean it is automatically substantial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Struggle to see how he's notable and how he doesn't fail WP:FRINGE. The 'best' references are a few, old articles from the New York Times (the first one of which is only a mention of a book), whilst other claimed references are unverifiable including from such 'highly prestigious medical publications' as The Readers Digest, and the far from unbiased Charisma. Ali Beatriz (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I found a couple of reliable sources (added to the article), but they're weak sources that only mention him in addition to a number of other sources about faith-based diets. They're also from 2005 and 2008, which lends doubt to his notability. Gbear605 (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing beyond brief interviews and routine coverage - not notable. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm very disappointed in the ability of others to find sources. Do none of you use anything other than Google? Are you aware of the Wikipedia Library? I have added two substantial newspaper sources to it that I think show notability, added some more facts. This article still has problems, and yes this guy is not the most notable physician in the world, but he's sold thousands of books and I don't think it should be deleted. People need to keep their personal opinions on the subjects out of notability discussions. I'm not super fond of this guy's message myself, but I was able to find sources with a few minutes work. --Krelnik (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * but he's sold thousands of books .. which, in itself, is not sufficiently notable for an article.Ali Beatriz (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - There are sources, but I'm not really finding much as far as sources about the subject in particular. It seems to be much more along the line of speaking of wild and crazy diets, check out what this Jesus-guy says. That would be cool, if his diet was independently notable, but it doesn't seem to be, and check out this wild and crazy Jesus-guy diet doesn't really help us write a biography.  G M G  talk  16:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also  It doesn't necessarily help things unless you indicate what sources you've found that others haven't.   G M G  talk  16:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I linked one above, and I put two better ones in the darn article. Another thing everyone here (except, thank you) seems to be forgetting - aren't we here to improve the encyclopedia? --Krelnik (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, yeah. But sources like the one you link to above aren't terribly useful. As I said, they're much more about "check out this kooky Jesus diet" and not really about the subject of the article in a way that helps us write an article that's more than a few sentences.  G M G  talk  01:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, is this like..."a thing"...where guys show up to his office so he can put a speaker up to their balls to make them more virile? That seems...oddly specific...  G M G  talk  01:41, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

If these sources were so easy to find why has it taken an AFD for users to bother to add them?Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * aren't we here to improve the encyclopedia? .. yes, and with respect, the removal of chaff is a legitimate improvement process. This is one reason why both WP:Notability and WP:Articles for deletion exist.Ali Beatriz (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but WP:BEFORE also exists and it doesn't mean do a quick Google search that only goes to page 2. It means REALLY look for sources as if you wanted to write the article yourself. --Krelnik (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How can sources to demonstrate notability be found if they don't exist due to a lack of notability?Ali Beatriz (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Although sources have been added to the article, everything I can find is either a passing mention or an interview with no analysis. It's not possible to write a neutral article on the topic using existing sources. –dlthewave ☎ 17:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:GreenMeansGo. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment on his notability as an author, WorldCat indicates that his writing output includes "217 works in 852 publications in 11 languages and 11,994 library holdings". Let me translate that for you - there are nearly 12,000 copies of his various books sitting in libraries right now, and that's just the ones that WorldCat knows about (not all libraries participate in WorldCat). His top held book is in 864 known libraries worldwide, he has several other books that are held in more than 500 libraries. Normally on an author this widely held I'd build a Works section and list his top 4 or 5 books in the article, but as everyone here has made up their mind I'm not going to bother. --Krelnik (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Was the article originally just SEO spam?
 * Dr. Colbert has been offering bloggers cash and a free dinner if they write about his website. & someone trying to promote Dr. Colbert’s online store via means that certainly violate journalistic ethics''

Note, the creator of the article, back in 2009, has made no other contributions.Ali Beatriz (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it was almost certainly originally SEO spam. However, if Colbert is notable, the article should not be deleted regardless of the original reason for the article to be created. The reverse also holds, that it should be deleted if Colbert is not notable. Gbear605 (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the agreement of my suspicions. I maintain the article should be deleted on grounds of lack of notability. The dodgy practice of SEO spam and the COI creation of the article can only increase the questionability, but also the lack of any substantial expansion of article and the struggle to find decent references after 11 years highlights the lack of notability.Ali Beatriz (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at the author info on that second link, then look at my user page. --Krelnik (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you explain rather than asking others to follow clues?Ali Beatriz (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. You've just started on Wikipedia this month, why are you so interested in this discussion? --Krelnik (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope - that's hardly constructive is it?
 * Why are you so interested in this discussion? - is there any reason I should not be interested? A quick review of does not find any policy where such justification is required.
 * May I suggest a review by you of &
 * Ali Beatriz (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For those who don't want to follow a chain of links, the author of the second link is . See the notice on Talk:Tim Farley. Gbear605 (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. Unless I missed something did not declare his interest when supporting keeping the article?Ali Beatriz (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , as far as I know, did not declare any previous connection. However, he's under no requirement to by Wikipedia guidelines, since I don't believe that he is breaking WP:COI. Gbear605 (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for further clarification. I would not go as far as to suggest this is disingenuous, but it's certainly not being fully open. However, it does smack of hypocrisy that the same person challenged the reason for my interest.Ali Beatriz (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This person's notability and my documentation of their alleged business practices have nothing to do with each other. Also, for those who are having trouble understanding - my blog post was a negative opinion about Colbert's business but I voted keep here. Those are kind of opposite things. --Krelnik (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * COI is not just bias in favor of or against the article, but I still don't think it applies here. Having written one blog post about Colbert six years ago does not make an external relationship, although it does suggest that you should be careful, which it seems that has been. Gbear605 (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 01:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Oral Roberts University had a medical school? That's astonishing. Softlavender (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak delete as there are some sources out there that speak about him. Antonio Me Martin (I hate having to do write this on every deletion vote but have to, so, here, talk to me) 11:50, 26 August, 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.