Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman W. 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.

The result was   keep. causa sui (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Norman W. Walker

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails general notability guidelines and WP:BIO. No evidence of coverage in independent, reliable sources. The sources in the article are mostly genealogical, and even they can't seem to figure out if this is the right Norman Walker (underscoring the lack of notability). MastCell Talk 21:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A short google search shows this guy massively referenced in alternative literature, as he is the "father of juicing". Mostly with a lot of very wrong but impressive claims about his longevity, such as the idea that he lived to be 117. The biographical information in this article makes it quite clear that this is the same Norman W. Walker of juicing fame, and that he only lived to be 99. That fact alone is enough to justify this article on his life. S  B Harris 22:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree that he's massively referenced in the alternative literature, I had a hard time finding anything resembling an independent, reliable source. Have you had better luck? MastCell Talk 22:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

We have independent reliable sources for the historicitity of the man himself. Because of census records (ordinarily considered reliable sources) we are much more confident about when this guy lived and died than we are about when (say) Jesus lived and died. There will never be an article Historicity of Norman W. Walker, as there is Historicity of Jesus. But the existence of the article on the Historicity of Jesus, based as it is upon the problems with LACK of accurate and reliable information about Jesus, is no reason to propose the deletion of Jesus here on WP, is it? (If you think so, try it!). As to what proponents of various belief-systems say about Norman W. Walker, they are as accurate and reliable about THEMSELVES as are believers in any philosophy or religion (as accurate about what they believe as are various believers in things about Jesus, for example, though these things may have no accurate or reliable basis per se). That's long been a tenet of WP: we let believers speak for themselves about their beliefs, and assume they are accurate and reliable sources for same. I believe you've been down this road about alternative medicine itself, which in many ways is just one more religion? Have you not? Indeed, there are are things about orthodox medicine which have been taken on faith, and which turned out not to be true (the general goodness of statin drugs for everybody with high LDLs; the goodness of HRT for postmenopausal women, etc, etc, etc). S B Harris 19:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with some of your philosophical points, but don't really want to get dragged off-topic in this venue. Jesus and his historicity are clearly encyclopedic subjects, because there is an extensive reputable, scholarly literature on both topics, some of it written by believers and some not. My problem is that I'm not finding any sources about Norman W. Walker that are independent and reliable enough to build an encyclopedic biography. I don't doubt his historical existence, but historical existence alone isn't really sufficient for notability. I'm trying to figure out whether there are independent, reliable sources covering him, and I have failed to find such sources. In their absence, not only does he seem to fail the relevant notability guidelines, but more importantly, I don't see how one can write a biography worthy of a serious encyclopedia. MastCell Talk 22:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, I don't see how this person meets notability requirements at all. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 00:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you google "Norman W. Walker" you get about 500,000 hits, mostly due to his seven books and many mentions in secondary literature. There's no question that he meets notability guidelines on his impact on the U.S. heathfood movement alone. One could write a fairly long article just on what these secondary sources say about his amazing health. Is all of it correct? No, much of it is wishful thinking, and (particularly the age stuff) frank error. So what? These are published sources, and the errors themselves are notable, since widely perpetuated. Most of the documented biographical stuff appears to have been discovered by this woman: . There is more than enough for a bio stub, and if one adds what the health books say, more than that. Hmmm. Are you two perhaps pulling my leg? Are you really aware of the quality of biography on WP? Nearly 1000 of the biographies on LIVING subjects have no cites AT ALL. Nor do I think that many of these have published books, marketted products (the Norwalk Press juicer), or would get you half a million google hits. S  B Harris 00:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments Three quick notes - there are about 140 articles in Category:All unreferenced BLPs, and every one of them (barring any new articles since this post) are on AFD as unreferenced BLPs. Second comment: WP:WAX for why 'other stuff exists' (with worse problems, the same problems, more problems, whatever) is not a useful argument in deletion discussions. Thirdly, GHits does not by itself denote notability. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest that G-Hit "by itself" denotes notability. But the relevant guideline WP:BIO states that a valid notability criterion is The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Google hits show that is the case here, as the "field" (machine-assisted fruit and vegetable juicing for health purposes) was basically invented by this man. The validity and size of the "field" is demonstated by the amount of present public interest in it, just like any other public health interest (veganism, for example). The number google hits shows this practice to be very popular and associated with a signficant commercial presense. A comment on WP:ATA (WP:WAX) and WP:OTHERSTUFF (WP:OSE) is that these essays (not guidelines or policies) are self-contradictory and poorly-concieved. Both of them assert that comparisons with standard practice are arguments to avoid, while at the same time admitting that such arguments are all that separate current notability policies-in-practice from others (for example, intrinsic notability of all high schools, vs. no such thing for junior high schools), and that as such these arguments are not only perfectly valid, but the ONLY arguments that exist to defend present policy-in-practice for many notability categories. As self-contradictory and therefore illogical essays, I personally think that WP:ATA and WP:OSE should themselves be avoided (and all mention of them avoided) until the people who use them and think about them do some thinking about just what it is that they actually want to say. In their essays. Once this has been done, perhaps we can downgrade them from "stupid essays" to merely "essays." But they still won't be policy or guideline until incorporated into policy or guideline. S  B Harris 18:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the number of google hits shows nothing aside from the fact that there is x google hits. It is the actual analysis of the results from the google hits revealing that demonstrates notability.  One needs to actually look at the results and delve into the sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The entire science of statistics exists to keep me from having to delve too much. 30 pages into such a google search, I'm still getting published articles, advertisements, and mentions in print about the relevant Norman W. Walker, the subject. Here is one from page 30: . He's notable. S  B Harris 20:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - A Google Book search turns up lots of references indicating he was a leading proponent of juicing. A few examples are:, , , . -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This gives him a sentence in a kind of cookbook published by a book publishing company called Book Publishing Company. This is a hagiography by someone who claims him as his great role model (who lived to be 116, of course), and look at the publication information for the book (for the uninitiated: this is not a reliable source). This makes the claim for the 'invention' of juicing, and again this is a book that can't be called reliable (though it is available in larger quantities, with a discount). In this one he lives to be 118, but who's counting. Not a single one of these books was published by a reputable press. That something got printed is often, as in this case, a crime against trees rather than the solid verification of disputed facts. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 05:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Whpq. That many sources are unreliable doesn't override the fact that the subject meets the GNG via a much smaller set of RS's. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as a formal recommendation, per my many comments above. S  B Harris 17:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - There appears to be several mentions of Walker in books. Perhaps reliable secondary sources can be found to further qualify topic notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, perhaps such sources can be found. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, per my single comment above. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep WorldCat shows his books were translated from English into 12 other languages . We normally consider that notability for an author. This is somewhat borderline, but that's what decided me.  DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with DGG's reasoning that based on the WorldCat results he is notable.  D r e a m Focus  16:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Walker passes WP:BIO, as evidenced by "Visions of the Pioneers: Norman W. Walker" from Alive Magazine, "Norman Walker" from The Raw Food Lifestyle: The Philosophy and Nutrition Behind Raw and Live Foods, a book review of Pure and Simple, Natural Weight Control from the Vegetarian Times, and this from Juice Alive: The Ultimate Guide to Juicing Remedies. Goodvac (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is very organized, it is a true biography artical to me, just needs an improvenent of sources. – Phoenix B 1of3  (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is a reasonable attempt to provide a balanced biography of a controversial individual. The rescuers need to improve the sources. There appears to be a great deal of information available online about this man. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per more found sources thanks to user:Goodvac, some of which I added to the article:
 * Richards, Doris E. (October 1992.) Visions of the Pioneers: Norman W. Walker: Juice Man Alive: Canada's Natural Health & Wellness Magazine, Issue 123, p10, 2p. ISSN 0228586X
 * Russo, Ruthann "The Raw Food Lifestyle: The Philosophy and Nutrition Behind Raw and Live Foods."
 * Bailey, Steven; Trivieri, Larry (2007.) "Juice Alive: The Ultimate Guide to Juicing Remedies." Square One Publishers. ISBN 0-7570-0266-8
 * Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2011 (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.