Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph D. Campbell (second 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 of the debate was Delete - Richardcavell 03:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Joseph D. Campbell
A DRV consensus found that the previous AfD on this subject was improperly closed. The article is resubmitted to AfD for evaluation of verifiability and notability. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I voted "delete" the first time around because the article was unsourced and unverified, so now the sourcing consists of... a letter to an editor and an article by Joseph D. Campbell himself? Uh, no. In fact, you can read the letter to the editor here, and in all four pages, Campbell is mentioned twice, and only in passing. -- Kicking222 17:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V and the WP:BIO guideline. It has been established that he published one article? That sure doesn't pass the professor test... &mdash; Haeleth Talk 18:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep he seems to have a published biography (ISBN 1412068835). The "keep" is weak because it has no Amazon sales rank, suggesting a very very very obscure book.  But in general I'd say anyone with a published book biography is probably worth a couple K of space on Wikipedia's servers as well, so keep. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't found this book in stock in the Canadian libraries -- university and public -- accessible from the book search page, or even at the University of Manitoba, where this guy taught. In other words, his own university library doesn't have the book. To call the book "obscure" understates things. And that publisher? It's a "print on demand" publisher, aka a vanity press. --Calton | Talk 02:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. Anyone can publish a biography on themselves, claiming how they are the great pioneers of a new scientific field. Thing is, besides what he's said about himself, nothing else collaborates his story. The one article he published was NOT in a peer-reviewed publication. Medical Hypotheses is a publication that really fits the name. It's for the publishing of hypotheses and possibly radical thoughts, often in order to try to get support from others in investigating the ideas. The website even says that it's a gateway to mainstream science, but is not meant to be a mainstream scientific publication itself. The other source is a Letter to the Editor, which doesn't come close to meeting reputable source criteria. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And yeah, I may have been slightly crazy to suggest not proceeding with deletion in the first AfD because of the late introduction of sources (which may have caused the admin to do just that, despite super majority consensus to delete). These sources are pretty weak. Still, it's often better to give editors the benefit of the doubt. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would avoid statements like "nothing else collaborates his story" where Dr. Lemke's publication has collaborated at least a part of it. There is verification, using independent resources, that it is not a hoax, the issue now is whether or not he is notable. Bejnar 16:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Lemke's publication is a Letter to the Editor, which does not meet the reputable source criteria. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 16:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails the prof test. Kafziel 00:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails "average professor" test. A vanity-press autobiography doesn't help his case any. --Calton | Talk 02:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per above. Makgraf 02:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Xoloz. I know this is the medical doctor, not the author Joseph Campbell. --Starionwolf 04:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would keep, but since I haven't received the list of scientific publications that Dr. Lemke indicated that she was sending me, I am willing to have it deleted, pending full verification of notablility. What is the procedure for that after a successful delete?  Do I just post the revised article? It may be a week or three since the American Library Association meetings will be taking up my time. Not the original editor. Bejnar 16:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Generally, I'd think you'd use the WP:Deletion Review. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 16:25, 14 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.