Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forest Tennant


 * 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   keep. Notability has been established through this discussion. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 23:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Forest Tennant

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reason for deletion: kindness, basically.

As the article now stands, the man is not notable. His publications are either self-owned or else not notable (not clear which is which), and there's no stories about him.

But there are these news notices: and and and and. And that's before you even get into this whole deal. So what we have is a person whose only fame is doing, or being accused of doing, unpleasant things, so if we're going to have an article on him, will just be full of unpleasantness and essentially an attack article. It was all a long time go, is small beer, is not of long lasting historical importance, is not a helpful addition to the corpus of human knowledge, and so let's not go there.

If I was convinced that Tennant himself had written the article or had it written, I'd not feel all that sympathetic. But for all I know it was written by a clueless admirer who didn't realize what he was getting this guy in for. Or maybe it's a false flag operation by an enemy, expressly designed to force us to be the executioners, on the assumption that our due diligence would find what I found. If that's it, well, I don't like to be played that way, so let's don't.

Note that it's a BLP. It cannot continue to exist in its current form as it's not properly referenced. So Delete on those grounds. There's nothing about the guy -- an interview, a brief bio in a neutral and notable source, so we can't really write a proper article about the guy so Delete on those grounds. If someone wants to write a proper article about this person someday, let them write a new article from scratch. Herostratus (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete – fails notability. United States Man (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral – Not a very notable person, but could be notable enough for an article. United States Man (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep – Easily notable; current sources in article are worthless but that's not a valid reason to propose deletion (quoting from WP:BEFORE, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.") Tennet is described in dozens of books and hundreds of articles as a leading expert on addiction and drug abuse, rather frequently as the "foremost" in the nation or a similar superlative. He was involved in a lot of research, was drug advisor to the NFL, ran a large chain of addiction treatment clinics, and seemed to be the go-to expert on drug addiction for many journalists during the 1980s. After the bulk of his scandels, he was involved in well publicized dietary research, and ran a chain of related clinics. While I didn't see any biographical articles about him, the extent of his high profile professional career easily establishes notability. Quoting from WP:BIO, "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." --Agyle (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep A check of Google Books shows evidence in support of Agyle's comment. Would be good to have more sources in the article. -- GreenC  06:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep although a weak keep. Herostratus, thank you for your compassion and consideration of the subject.  I leaned toward agreement but checking further, he definitely meets criterion 7 of WP:ACADEMIC.  The article in its current state doesn't belong in main space; it is neither neutral nor anywhere near complete.  It is unbalanced since the recent negative aspects aren't included.  That said, although Tennant's books don't meet notability standards for separate articles, they are often referenced in the writings of researchers and other writers.  Google scholar finds over 200 articles where he is author or coauthor of articles in peer reviewed journals.  We need to watch this article and ensure it is balanced with due emphasis on past positives as well as recent negatives.  I added the article to my watch list and will do my best to ensure it never becomes an attack article. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 18:34, 15 January 2014 (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.