Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Ballard


 * 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. bd2412 T 03:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Douglas Ballard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertorially tinted WP:BLP of an alternative medicine practitioner, which has been flagged as a possible WP:COI. Nothing here constitutes a pass of any subject-specific inclusion test, so it's all about whether he passes WP:GNG or not -- but two of the three references are primary sources, which cannot assist in demonstrating notability at all, and the only one that links to a reliable source is not an article about him, but one which merely includes him giving soundbite on another topic. This is not the kind of coverage it takes to pass GNG -- he needs to be the subject of sources that are independent of him, not the author or a giver of a brief quote, to qualify for an article on here. Bearcat (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Nonnotable nonsense.  E Eng  02:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: per . This is where I think A7 ought to be changed: the article technically makes a credible claim of significance but the claim is clearly false and not backed up by appropriate sources.    Dr Strauss   talk   09:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, "claim is clearly false and not backed up by appropriate sources" is not a determination that can be made on a speedy basis; we have to cast around for sources. A7 is for subjects that aren't even trying to be notable, so to speak.  E Eng  13:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair, if he were the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG, then it wouldn't matter a whit whether anybody thinks the claim that he was "given healing and visionary abilities by non-religious direct contact with universal energy" represents a credible truth or a bunch of woo. We do, for example, keep articles about people who can be well-sourced as notable for espousing conspiracy theories, racist, sexist or homophobic attacks on groups of people, and other ideas that are self-evidently false — because it's not the accuracy or falsity of what they say, but the amount of reliable source attention they do or don't get for saying what they say, that marks the line. It's the lack of appropriate sourcing, not your or my personal opinions about the fundamental concept of energy healing, that make this deletable. Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2017 (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.