Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin J. Walker


 * 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.

AfDs for articles about this person
 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Walker (1st nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Martin Walker (2nd nomination)
 * Deletion review
 * Articles for deletion/Martin J. Walker (3rd nomination)

The result was   delete. No significant coverage in RS. Black Kite 18:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Martin J. Walker

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article on this subject has already been deleted due to non-notability: see Articles_for_deletion/Martin_Walker_(2nd_nomination) which turned out near unanamous approval for deletion. It appears possible that the author of this article user:Sam Weller was aware that the subject's previous article has been deleted, as, when his notibility was questioned, directed the user in question to the no-consensus result of Walker's first notability nomination. Subject fails on virtually all notability criteria on authors or activists: has not had work published in any peer-review, mainstream or credible publications. Vast majority of publications and publishing houses on article's Bibliography return nothing on Google search. All verifiable output appears to be in the form of self-published pdf files and pamphlets. Mainstream coverage appears to be limited to a couple of brief mentions in a couple of journals and alternative magazines, and even that's assuming that the inadequate references in the article in question are accurate. Google search for Martin J. Walker returns only 941 hits. Further arguments for and against can be found at both deletion nominations listed above.FrFintonStack (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: The article was re-created as a result of this deletion review. Polemarchus (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: Review states: Recreation based on reliable sources and with attention to NPOV allowed. Just to clarify, that means that it may be receated given certain pre-conditions, not that it ought to be. Can see no evidence of requisite reliable sources.FrFintonStack (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Have you followed the convention of notifiying the editors who have worked on that article? Sam Weller (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable.  Unless someone can show that Walker has "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".  Polemarchus (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Uncertain Some degree of mainstream acceptance--or at least tolerance-- is shown by the articles in mainstream journals, including multiple ones in MIT's The Ecologist--not all of them cited in the article, but se WorldCat. His books were published without the middle initial, which makes hem harder to identify, but a check shows done with any large number of library holdings. DGG (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure I understand your point, DGG. The issue here is notability, not acceptability.  Tens of thousands of British people have published articles in mainstream journals but they're not all notable.  The question is whether reliable, published sources consider Walker to be notable enough to write about.  The evidence I've seen suggests they don't.  (Also, just to clarify, The Ecologist is distributed in North America by the MIT Press but it's not an academic journal, and it's certainly not "MIT's The Ecologist".  It's a fringe magazine and its writers are not generally notable.)  Polemarchus (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment If we were to extend notability to everyone who has had an article published in a magazine or a journal, we would include virtually every academic and journalist in existence, as well as literally millions of private individuals working in other fields, myself included.FrFintonStack (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The deletion proposal fails to substantiate non-notability in any respect. Walker's books from mainstream publishers such as Sidgwick, Fontana and Canary Press are fully referenced in the bibliography, and reviews from serious independent sources are highlighted in the article itself. His graphic works are included in several national and international collections, again fully referenced. So in what way are the references 'inadequate'? As for my recreation of the originally deleted article, the discussion on my talk page makes clear there is no secret that I initiated the deletion review, and why. I have no confidence in a deletion proposal that so ignorantly or mischievously omits these points. Sam Weller (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Let's everyone assume good faith and try to stay on topic here. The article was clearly created in good faith and nominated for deletion in good faith, the only question is whether Walker is notable.
 * Sam, it's absurd to ask people to provide evidence of non-notability. It's up to the person asserting notability to provide evidence.  Nobody's disputing the fact that Walker has published books, articles and art, but that's not, in itself, evidence of notability.  As I said, tens of thousands of British people have published that kind of stuff, and we're not gonna have Wikipedia articles about them all.  Book reviews are not ordinarily evidence of notability either: non-notable books are reviewed all the time.  The rule of thumb is that a person is notable if they've received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.
 * If you want this article to be kept, I suggest you read Notability (people) and explain why Walker is more notable than the millions of other writers and activists out there. (The simplest way to do this would be by pointing us to a reliable source that talks about how notable he is.)  Polemarchus (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK Polemarchus, first the simple way. Check my talk page for why I got a deletion review when another WP article states Walker is notable.


 * Second, using the rulebook.


 * "Basic criteria: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]"
 * The article already contains highlighted extracts from full length independent reviews in weighty cultural/political journals. They comment on two phases of Walker's published books, politics of policing (1980s) and pharmaceutical politics (1990s on).


 * "Creative professionals: The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries."
 * The article already contains ample detail of exhibitions and permanent holdings in internationally important galleries and collections. References to the catalogues and monographs containing examples of Walker's graphic work are included in the refs.


 * NB, "Invalid criteria" includes search engine statistics.


 * Walker clearly meets WP criteria for notability in two distinct professional fields, and as such is doubly notable. Moreover, he is stated to be notable in a separate WP article. Sam Weller (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Peer-reviewed article, mentioned in the text, and in the bibliography.

Am J Ind Med. 2006 Nov 3. Secret ties to industry and conflicting interests in cancer research. Lennart Hardell, Martin J. Walker, Bo Walhjalt, Lee S Friedman, Elihu D Richter. Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Örebro and Department of Natural Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden. BACKGROUND: Recently it was reported that a Swedish professor in environmental health has for decades worked as a consultant for Philip Morris without reporting his employment to his academic employer or declaring conflicts of interest in his research. The potential for distorting the epidemiological assessments of hazard and risk through paid consultants, pretending to be independent, is not exclusive to the tobacco industry. METHODS: Documentation is drawn from peer reviewed publications, websites, documents from the Environmental Protection Agency, University reports, Wellcome Library Special Collections and the Washington Post. RESULTS: Some consulting firms employ university researchers for industry work thereby disguising industry links in the income of large departments. If the industry affiliation is concealed by the scientist, biases from conflicting interests in risk assessments cannot be evaluated and dealt with properly. Furthermore, there is reason to suspect that editors and journal staff may suppress publication of scientific results that are adverse to industry owing to internal conflict of interest between editorial integrity and business needs. CONCLUSIONS: Examples of these problems from Sweden, UK, and USA are presented. The shortfalls cited in this article illustrate the need for improved transparency, regulations that will help curb abuses as well as instruments for control and enforcement against abuses. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2006. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.


 * Easy to see why Walker might be deemed a threat by various interests. Sam Weller (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry Sam, you can't use another Wikipedia article as evidence of notability, as Wikipedia's not a reliable source. (Anyone could have inserted Walker's name into the Health freedom movement article, the statement's not sourced.)
 * You've quoted the notability criteria for creative professionals but haven't said which one you think he meets. Are you suggesting he "(d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries"?  If so, which "several notable galleries or museums" do you mean?  (It seems to me that the article exaggerates the extent to which Walker's work has been exhibited.  For example, I could only find one of his works in the Victoria and Albert Museum archive — am I missing something?)
 * What do mean you mean by "full length independent reviews in weighty cultural/political journals"? Are you talking about those book reviews in Capital & Class and the Edinburgh Review?!  I suspect we have very different understandings of the word weighty.  If his books are notable they will have been discussed in mainstream publications (like The Times Literary Supplement or the New Statesman), not just extremely rare mentions in fringe magazines.
 * I don't understand why you're citing the Am J Ind Med article. No-one's disputing that Walker has published articles but, as we've said, millions of people have published articles in peer-reviewed journals and they're not generally notable.  And could you please explain what your comment about Walker being "deemed a threat by various interests" has to do with this discussion?
 * Anyway, to return to my original question, can you cite a reliable source that says he's notable? Polemarchus (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Now, now, Polemarchus, you're not the judge here, and you can't invent criteria, shift goalposts to suit your case, and interrrogate other jurors. "Subject fails on virtually all notability criteria on authors or activists: has not had work published in any peer-review, mainstream or credible publications." Did you really not pick up the serial misrepresentation there? It's really up to others to vote and decide this. You and I have had our chance. Sam Weller (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * When did I shift goalposts or invent criteria?! I've repeatedly asked you to either (1) demonstrate how Walker meets our notability criteria or (2) cite a reliable, published source that thinks he's notable.  Now that you've hopelessly failed to do either of these things, you want to change the subject.  Frankly, I think it's completely ridiculous of you to accuse me of inventing criteria, interrogating you, and shifting the goalposts.


 * Please assume good faith and stop accusing other editors of dishonesty. Okay, so Finton was incorrect to claim that Walker hasn't had any work published in a peer-reviewed publication, but this is irrelevant since peer-reviewed publications are not evidence of notability.  (See Notability (academics).)


 * By the way, this is a discussion, not a vote. The closing admin will weigh up the arguments for and against deletion.  Like I said, if you want the article to be kept, it's in your interest to provide some sort of evidence that Walker meets our inclusion criteria.  Attacking everyone who disagrees with you is not likely to help your case.  Polemarchus (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well excuse me. Finton's deletion attempt was launched without informing editors who worked on the article, or editors involved in the deletion review from earlier this year. My good faith has been questioned in two places, here and at Ben Goldacre. The deletion proposal itself misrepresents Walker's work not merely by claiming that he had no peer-reviewed articles (which you concede was wrong), but that he had published no books (when he has), with mainstream publishers (when he has), and has attracted no independent critical comment (when he has). Since all these points were available in the existing article, we're entitled to wonder what is going on here. And since when are independent critical reviews in serious journals not good enough unless they appear in publications of your choosing?

As I'm not au fait with the subject's recent activities, I googled and was interested to find this deletion attempt coincides with a very public spat between another investigative journalist, Brian Deer, with Walker. http://briandeer.com/mmr/mli-information.htm http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=2360&end=2380&view=yes&id=2887#newspost []

For what it's worth... Sam Weller (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam, I've explained several times now that the general rule is that a person is notable if he's received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. In his forty years as a writer, Walker has apparently been the subject of two book reviews in minor publications.  I doubt anyone would consider that "significant coverage".  My granny has received more media attention than this guy, ffs.


 * The rest of your comments are completely off-topic. There's no rule saying the person who nominates the article has to notify the editors involved.  In any case, it's pretty rich for you to criticise Finton for not informing the editors who were involved in the deletion review, considering that you launched the deletion review without notifying the editors who were involved in the last AfD.  Why should different standards apply to people you disagree with?


 * I notice that you've now gone to the trouble of notifying the editors who voted to re-create this article, but not the people who voted to delete it. You might want to read WP:CANVAS before notifying anyone else.  Regards, Polemarchus (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please be more accurate, Polemarchus, I said 'convention', not rule - which I took from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Deer,"Have you followed the convention of notifiying the editors who have worked on that article? Midgley 19:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)"


 * Re the Walker deletion review in March, you can check my history and my talk page and discover I did nothing at any stage without first taking advice from experienced editors - MastCell, and Singularity. They said nothing about notifying editors who deleted the original article. I don't understand your last comment - I notified all the deletion review editors regardless of their opinion (except one who has been banned), as well as the editor who closed the debate. The 'delete' editors you refer to are all here. Or do you actually mean I should have gone back to the editors who voted to delete the old article, and the ones who voted to keep it even before then? That was a different article - and as I said previously, I can understand why it was deleted, since IMO it was startlingly poor, even from the little I knew about Walker.


 * I find the tone of some of the comments here unpleasant and mildly threatening. Why should I assume good faith when it's not accorded to me? 1. I've mentioned Fintons's wild allegations, and asked him to substantiate his statement, "when his notibility was questioned, directed the user in question to the no-consensus result of Walker's first notability nomination." I wasn't even aware of the first debate until Finton mentioned it. 2. I am not close to the subject, and I have no ownership of the article - of course I initiated its recreation, but I have only reverted one anonymous act of vandalism. All other editors have done what they wanted with no interference from me. Verbal edited once only, making numerous requests for sources. I hope I dealt quickly and completely with them, as requested, but without any acknowledgement or further help from Verbal it's hard to tell. I would have been far happier if I'd not been left to do 95% of the work unaided. 3. There were no complaints about coatracks before - if it's a problem which I'm blind to, why were the coats not removed by those now objecting?


 * Frankly, I'm as unimpressed with the quality of editorial oversight during the revised article's brief history as the deleting editors are with the article. Cheers. Sam Weller (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete vs. rewrite from scratch: I !voted at the deletion review to allow recreation provided it was based on reliable sources; my fear was that it would becone a WP:COATRACK. My fear has been realized. I'm not entirely sure which of the following two scenarios is at play: either a) there are insufficient independent, reliable sources to write a neutral, encyclopedic article about the guy, or b) a short, neutral article must be carved out of the lengthy coatrack which the article has become. I favor deletion; I am not encouraged by the reference to the OneClick website, which is BLP-inappropriate. If kept, the article should probably be stubbed and rewritten from the bottom up, with sources and content vetted for reliability and POV before being included. MastCell Talk 20:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Still a non-notable, has coatrack problems and seems to be being used as a soapbox. I've edited this page in the past and one editor seems to have ownership issues and be very close to the subject. Verbal   chat  15:26, 25 September 2008 (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.