Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Null (2nd nomination)


 * 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. WP:SNOW. Despite that though, I think 's point at the end is a good one. (non-admin closure)  J 947(c) (m) 18:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Gary_Null
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am an Attorney representing Gary Null in his attempt to have his Wikipedia page removed. Gary Null's Wikipedia page should be deleted because it breaches Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, which requires verifiability, i.e. that the information comes from reliable sources. On Gary Null's page, Reference #3 for the statement "He is an ADIS denialist and anti-vaccinationist" results in a 404-error page and thus not be considered a reliable source. Further, Gary Null's page is decidedly negative, which goes against Wikipedia's requirement for a Neutral Point of View. Donickma (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donickma (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, Nom is correct regarding the "salon" link, but it just needs correcting. The decidedly negative tone is just a reflection of Null and his relationship to the mainstream scientific view. -Roxy the dog. bark 16:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep A notable (just) person. Reason given for deletion is spurious. Alexbrn (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly meets all of our relevant notability guidelines. I've replaced the dead Salon link with an archived version from Wayback. Softlavender (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, since the Salon link which seems to have been the main objection to the page has been corrected, and the subject's notability is well established. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep appears to meet guidelines. Artw (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:BLPFRINGE. (The neutrality of this article has also been discussed multiple times at WP:BLPN.) -Location (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC) edited to include parenthetical comment 23:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Neutral" is not the same as making everybody look good. ApLundell (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Appears to meet notability criteria and AfD is not the right venue to propose corrections. The article does not appear to be an attack page considering the sources and tone.  NPOV does not mean that the article should be promotional; it is about reflecting in due weight what reliable sources report.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 01:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. WP:SNOW. A quote from Jimbo Wales: "What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.". Off-line sources (e.g. books) can be reliable, and dead links should not be removed (and fixing them is usually quite simple). &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep because the proposer of this AfD has attempted to rewrite history on a technicality which has since been fixed, and has an obvious conflict of interest in making their client look good when countless reliable sources paint him in a different light. That, ladies and gentlemen, is called balance. Anything else is pandering. Facts is facts, even in Trump's America. Famous  dog   (c) 06:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep because he is a notable person and appears to meet the guidelines.--ClrView (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep the article's subject is notable; an editor has addressed the dead link mentioned by the OP by replacing it with an copy curated in the Wayback Machine/Internet Archive. The source in question meets wikipedia criteria for a reliable source, thus the statement in question is verifiable.  WP:NPOV does not require our articles to avoid discussing controversies surrounding living persons or to withhold opinions expressed by others regarding living persons or their acts or statements - just that they be presented neutrally.  WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP require that we take care that statements made about living persons are verifiable and reliably sourced. The statements regarding the subject of this article all can be verified by the reader to be based on reliable sources.  loupgarous (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Relatively detailed and well-sourced article on a minor fringe writer. Meets notability criteria. I found contradictions between the Lead and the body of the article, but I think I fixed them. Dimadick (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment In answer to OP's statement "Gary Null's page is decidedly negative, which goes against Wikipedia's requirement for a Neutral Point of View", WP:BLP says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." We did that. Any negative inferences drawn about the subject are solely owing to the subject's own contentious statements and reactions to those statements reported in reliable sources for information. It's no more POV for us to include that information in an article than it is for us to report on other WP:FRINGE theories and their reception by outside commentators. loupgarous (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete suject is not notable enough that there is any reason to have an article on the subject against his wish. Having this article against a clear desire not to on the part of this marginally notable person is a violation of the spirit of BLP rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 4 September 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.