Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph D. Campbell


 * 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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS -- 9 cds(talk) 23:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Joseph D. Campbell
Delete. This person appears non-notable, and claims of being well known are quite unverfiable and unsourced. Despite extensive Googling, the best I can come up on regarding this Joseph Campbell is his own website selling his own autobiography. That website also seems to make him out to be well known, or a "pioneering scientists", but nothing else seems to support it. I might turn my vote around if credible sources are given. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, will also reconsider if sources are given. Mak (talk)  03:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, no credible claims of notability -Drdisque 04:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It is just a stub right now, but there is material available. Give the editors a chance; the article was just posted today.  Dr. Campbell's work was mostly before 1980, and unfortunately, material from before 1990 can frequently be unavailable using Google, so this might take some time.  Bejnar 04:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone probably at least cited him within the internet age or at least knows the name of one of his works. -Drdisque 06:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Question: Are we talking about the man who wrote about mythology and "The Hero With a Thousand Faces?" I heard of him.  --Starionwolf 06:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the mythology writer is Joseph Campbell, whose article is not going anywhere. Joseph D. Campbell is the hair tissue mineral analyst. --Metropolitan90 08:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, for now, but this really needs to be sourced. If this guy did all this stuff his webpage says he did, I'd call him notable.  If.  --UsaSatsui 11:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, let it expand naturally, the sources will come sooner or later. --Ter e nce Ong 14:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm somewhat confused right now. No published works have been cited, nor have any independent internet sites. I've found a total of 4 books by him, but they are at a total of one library worldwide each (the Canadian equivalent of the Library of Congress). What exactly is the claim for notability here? His own home institution doesn't even own his books. We have no particular reason to trust his own personal website. Mak (talk)  17:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC) (p.s. My father's book is in a total of 515 libraries worldwide, and I wouldn't write a Wikipedia article on him). Mak  (talk)  17:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment in addition I find no entries for this author in PubMed, which includes important medical journals starting in 1950. Mak (talk)  18:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree there are no articles by him in PubMed which is skewed towards US publications. I am working on verification of Canadian publications. Bejnar 21:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment on Wikipedia Policy. I am quoting the policy on verifiability: -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 17:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Aside from only slight claims of notability, the article is unsourced and unverifiable. If info can't be verified, it can't be on WP, plain and simple. -- Kicking222 17:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Verifiability is not negotiable. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * verification I have verified his Nov. 2001 publication "Lifestyle, Minerals and Health" in Medical Hypotheses an Elsevier science publication. I have also verified a publication by his successor Dr. Lemke, listed under References. Bejnar 01:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * More discussion needed?. This might require more talk. However, the first reference does not sound like a peer-reviewed publication, since it's labelled as "letter to the editor". That limits its scientific merit and its merit towards notability. The second reference is also not peer reviewed or independently confirmed, as their website says
 * The journal therefore constitutes a bridge between cutting-edge theory and the mainstream of medical and scientific communication, which ideas must eventually enter if they are to be critiqued and tested against observations.
 * So, neither of these sources can be taken too seriously. They may provide some verifiability (as in, proving that he has tried to get this ideas out there), but they don't make him notable. More input is needed from others though, my argument may be somehow flawed. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:49, 5 June 2006 (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.