Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lex Kogan (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 delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines due to a lack of significant coverage of the article subject in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Deleted back in 2013, this article still fails to meet any notability guidelines, while making promotional claims failing WP:MEDRS. Delete per WP:BIO guidelines. Winner 42 Talk to me!  03:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - From the talk page, the creator of the article said it best, "there is an incredibly small amount of third party literature out there about his work. Many people do notable work that is not documented by third parties." That statement is absolutely true; however, Wikipedia is not a third party source. Wikipedia is based on third party sources. If there is nothing to document his notability, then he quite simply will continue to fail WP:GNG despite how many times the article is created. --TTTommy111 (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * TTTommy111: I did not imply that wikipedia is a third party source, I only said that the third party sources are limited, but they suffice. I also am assuming that "significant coverage" does not mean by quantity, but significance. I have provided three sources where Lex Kogan is central to the article, from reliable third-party sources, where they explain his significance. Ibogaine is significant, as you can read about in the article about ibogaine, and someone who is mentioned by an industry magazine as its foremost proponent and having been the first to establish clinics around the world, Lex Kogan is significant. There are three other articles that are centered around Lex Kogan in the article, also from third party sources. NittyG (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: The article itself states that the "pioneering" work is fringe. It hides peer-review and academic discussion behind a passive voice "was found," and then goes on to continue promoting a particular cure for addiction, PTSD, and symptomatic depression. Maybe medicine will validate all of this. When it does, there will need to be an article. Until then, Wikipedia is not a jury and cannot promote. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The notability of Lex Kogan is not in the medical efficacy of his clinics as independently verified by the modern/Western medical community. Ibogaine may be fringe, but is significant enough to warrant an article about ibogaine. As Lex Kogan is the first to widely proliferate clinics around the world where ibogaine is administered, as mentioned in the reliable, third party sources I provided, he is notable enough to warrant an article. NittyG (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 *  Delete Redirect to Ibogaine: a fringe topic or alternative medicine practicioner can be notable, but this subject appears to fail the notability criteria outlined at WP:BASIC and WP:ACADEMIC. VQuakr (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC) ETA: upon reflection, this is a plausible search term and should be a redirect instead of a redlink. Changed my !vote accordingly. VQuakr (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have thoroughly addressed Lex Kogan's notability. You have thus far failed to address what I have written in response. You will need to do that before a deletion is justified. NittyG (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * what are, in your opinion, the two sources that best demonstrate the subject's notability (as described at WP:BASIC)? VQuakr (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unambiguously fails WP:GNG. I do not agree with a redirect either. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Woah, I apologize, I did not realize that there were two discussions going on about deletion. I have thoroughly addressed these concerns. I suppose I will move the discussion here. Please address these concerns before deleting.


 * I understand that this article was started before. I can certainly understand why this article has issues. Problem is, Lex Kogan is certainly notable, but there is an incredibly small amount of third party literature out there about his work. Many people do notable work that is not documented by third parties.


 * Notability: As I mentioned in the article: "Kogan and his partner, Eric Taub, were the first to develop ibogaine clinics which provide treatments..."
 * One of the sources was Treatment Magazine, which is a reliable third-party industry publication. This is a crucial exerpt:
 * "... Lex Kogan, arguably the leading proponent of Ibogaine treatment, along with his partner Eric Taub."


 * This can all be inferred from the literature - Eric Taub was among the first to bring ibogaine into use in the Americas. And Lex Kogan formalized it with the expansion of clinics, which is the central focus of the article from Treatment Magazine. People are administering ibogaine in very haphazard ways, and people have even died while being treated; Lex Kogan has formalized the treatments professionally, with well-developed methods, protocols and routines, while also expanding it beyond any other person. Ibogaine is significant - think of any early medical pioneer in any field, and how significant that is - the notability of Lex Kogan is along these lines.


 * Reliability: All articles are third party, and they are all reliable. A couple are interviews with people directly associated with Lex Kogan, but they are only to reference the claims they make about being attacked, and mundane details about how they administer treatments. I never added any of their websites, which of course give far more biographical information about Lex Kogan and the history of their centers.


 * Neutrality: If you would like to know why I started this article - ibogaine is an important subject, and frankly, there is a ton of confusion and misinformation about ibogaine online, much of which is deliberate. Wikipedia is an excellent place for providing clear and reliable information free of bias. I have gained the knowledge of the importance of Eric Taub and Lex Kogan by gleaning information from peoples first hand experiences, which are not reliable third party references, so I have done my best to establish this on solid ground. I believe that what I have provided suffices. As for any issues about promoting their work, again, I have done my best to mention everything I could find in reliable third-party sources, including criticisms.


 * NittyG (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I will also address the concerns each of you have individually above.NittyG (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree completely with your assessment. He simply is not notable, according to Wikipedia's guidelines.
 * "but there is an incredibly small amount of third party literature out there about his work." --> exactly!.
 * "Many people do notable work that is not documented by third parties" --> not according to how Wikipedia works. Please read the relevant guidelines, most importantly WP:GNG.
 * The only way to address this is by providing extensive coverage in independent and reliable sources, which is clearly not available at this point in time. Not that it matters at this point, but the article is also very poorly written, and heavily promotional and full of unencyclopaedic language. Finally, understand that the first nomination's outcome was also delete, and no substantial changes have occured hence. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. A bunch of brief mentions, even to state that he is the leading propopenent of something or the first to do something, is not sufficient.  Several of the sources in the article do not even mention the subject, and only one is even arguably significant coverage.  Certainly not significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. (BTW, even if the article is kept, it seems to need some clean up as it appears at least somewhat promotional.  For example, the statement that he and Taub are "employing staff that people claim were trained with knowledge and nuanced understanding they developed over several years, carefully administering ibogaine, along with medical staff that monitor patients" [emphasis added] contains a number of statements, such as those I bolded, that are not supported by the source, not to mention the weasel wording around "that people claim...") Rlendog (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think a redirect is necessary because the target does not mention Kogan. Rlendog (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2015 (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.