Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Long


 * 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. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Jeffrey Long

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are no reliable secondary sources used in the article, and no indication of notability. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  13:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Did you look at news search? Looks to me like this guy and his crazy ideas and his NDERF have independent coverage in enough places to be considered notable.  E.g. this one at ABC News.  Just because it's fringe doesn't mean  it's not notable. Dicklyon (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Add them to the article and !vote "Keep" you may "win" the discussion, then. This is neither my monkey nor my circus, so if you get enough suitable references added I'll happily withdraw the nom. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, (no reliable sources in article). -Roxy the dog. bark 14:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per my recent PROD nomination (removed by User:Dicklyon), which went: "Sources are very far from demonstrating notability, being either to self (Long's own site nderf.org), or of the type "the man/the book exists" (Amazon, German Random House, etc), or an utterly unreliable-looking [woo-woo] site called skeptiko.com." This AfD is the third place Dicklyon has mentioned the existence of "independent coverage". I'm with MjolnirPants: if Dicklyon improves the article by adding some of the reliable sources he believes exist, I'll consider changing to Keep. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC).
 * Merge to Near-death experience. I looked through the news search sources recommended by Dicklyon and found passing mentions of Long, but no real in-depth coverage of him sufficient to warrant a stand alone bio. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Long is one of the leading authorities in the field of near-death studies and the author of a New York Times Best Seller. Yes, there are enough people, which hate such kind of researchers, and these people would like to delete all about it. Just check what they have done in the article Near-death experience last days . There are many, many movies about that subject, and many of these movies are very popular. They, with ip's, not with their own name, delete the links to other Wikipedia-articles, which show that movies. I tried to call it to the admins of Wikipedia, but even there they called these movies junk movies and worth to delete them all from Wikipedia . And now, one day later, they try to delete an article about one of the leading researchers on that field. I don't understand, why there is so much negative emotions about that subject. If I work on other Wikipedia-articles, there are much less emotions in most cases. If somebody don't like this subject, they don't need to read it. But there are more than 1000 visitors every day on the article near-death experience. And that success may be a reason for some people to destroy that, just because they hate it. There is no rational reason for doing that. Wega14 (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * you might benefit from a quick read of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * sorry, but I don't understand. In the article is most written already. Long was in very, very much TV-Shows, is the author of a New York Times Best Seller, one of the leading authorities in the field of near-death studies and more. Come on, that is more than enough to have an own article in Wikipedia. If you say, the quality is not good enough, ok. But that is already written in that article isn't it? Wega14 (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What I'm trying to say is that we generally don't judge the Notability of an article subject by whether or not editors say "they've been on many tv shows" (which is unverifiable in and of itself) or whether they have written a bestseller (which is incredibly easy to game, and which their publishers have a vested interest in gaming). If you want to keep this article, what you will need to do is find a significant number of reliable sources (be sure to click on that link to help you decide whether a source is reliable or not) who have written about Long. This doesn't include cases where he is mentioned in passing, such as when a source gives a list of NDE-associated people and includes Long on that list. It has to be about Long to qualify. As I said to Dicklyon above: I don't mind withdrawing the nomination one bit, but for that to happen, I need to be shown that yes, there is a significant amount of coverage of this guy in reliable sources. Right now, I just don't see that, and most of the editors who come here to comment on this aren't going to see that either, unless you or Dicklyon can dig up those sources and add them to the article (be sure to post them here, as well, as some of us may not be watching the article). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * so I do list some articles:   an article in washington post  Huffington Post  today:      I could continue more than hundred very easy. Wega14 (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The article can be saved, I think, if you'll look for sources that are independent enough. The Washington Post one you added today is "By Dr. Jeffrey Long", so not really independent coverage of him.  Do the work. Dicklyon (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes an article by Jeffrey Long in the Washington Post. How important has a person to be, to be allowed to write an own article in the Washington Post? Just give me some examples, I would include them all, may be one hundred. Would that be enough? Wega14 (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it now enough? The list of references is already longer than the article itself. I can continue including sources, but I know, next day there will come another user, which delete them again. Wega14 (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And another thing: there are 5 to 15 percent of all people around the world, which report to had already a near-death experience. It is a kind of Discrimination what happens here, if they are called all crazy people. And there are researchers working on the field, they are called crazy, too. And there are many, many movies. These are called junk movies. And there is the artificial intelligence. They can rebuild the brain now, means the neuronal networks with simulations in the computer by software. The cognitive abilities these artificial intelligence have, but these have no emotions and no consciousness. So out-of-brain theories get more and more popular among researchers. But many still call this esoteric. I think, such things should stop. Wega14 (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Many of the sources recently added are not reliable and the article reads like an advert now. 82.132.215.104 (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why can't you use your username doing this? You are from London, what I can see. And it seems that you are the same one doing the last changes on Near-death experience like and . The last source is much too old, because the near-death research just started at that time. If you would know something about that subject, you would know that. And why did you delete all the links to the popular films, which have main subject NDE? Something similar was done already here . It is a kind of fight of you against that subject it seems to me. There you used also different ip's all from London. Wega14 (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , Please read WP:BLUDGEON and carefully consider if it is truly necessary for you to argue with every comment here. Also, please read WP:FOC and try to remain focused on content, not contributors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There was once a list of the most well known NDE researchers in the article near-death experience. One of them was Jeffrey Long. You can see it here: . They started to delete important parts of the article near-death experience. Now they start deleting the wikipedia-articles of the well known NDE-researches in Wikipedia. Wega14 (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep if someone is willing to do the work of gathering the probably notable sources available in a trivial google scholar search instead of just criticizing. Skills are needed but so is actually paying attention to the work worth doing rather than beat it up because no one has done it. Smkolins (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will try to include some of them. Wega14 (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – The article is a mess, but if the independent refs are cleaned up, and a bit of content from each is added, and some of the self-refs removed, it would be a reasonable bio of notable fringe guy. Dicklyon (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you :-) Wega14 (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon - I moved some of the non-independent material out of the reflist, and I tried to flesh out the bio a bit with the references that were there. There are still a few refs that don't really support that statement about his media appearances, but I think things are at least in a bit better shape now. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. May be you could still vote for keep ? Wega14 (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, per the "Keeps" above and per the subject being a notable expert and major researcher in his chosen field of endeavor. Maybe there is life after AfD after all! Randy Kryn 1:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Wega14 (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This is a BLP, so a relist is probably best

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. User: Wega14 gave all the compelling reasons why this man is noble. He not only is widely covered in the press, but he has been on the leading talk shows as well. Best selling author as well. The adequacy of his explanations/documentation of near death is an entirely separate issue from his notability. There is clearly a market for him in terms what he is promoting. I understand people's skepticism. though. Long appeared on the Coast to Coast radio show. I personally wouldn't bother listening to him on Coast to Coast as I have never heard a compelling guest on that show. But people need to stop flagging articles for deletion when the person is a high profile member of society merely because they disagree with their ideas. In the marketplace of ideas, not all ideas are valid, but clearly there are people who have a big market share and large followings. Large followings = Public Influence = Notability. Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient sources to establish notability regardless of whether or not we are fans of their work. Artw (talk) 20:23, 14 April 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.