Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter A. McCullough


 * 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 WP:SNOW keep, for lack of a rationale based in either policy or reality for deletion of this article. The subject is clearly notable, and AfD is not the place to litigate content disputes. BD2412 T 03:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Peter A. McCullough

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a procedural nomination on behalf of an editor who is unable to currently post. With permission, their rationale has been copied verbatim from ticket:2021081510003236:

In other words, this is a BLPREQUESTDELETE situation. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * no valid deletion rationale given. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not that I am necessarily advocating for them, but he does say that he feels he is a non-notable individual. Primefac (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Consider my !vote amended to "no reasonable deletion rational given". As KidAd says, McCullough definitely meets GNG. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Speedy Keep Based on a review of the sources, it appears that McCullough meets WP:GNG. It also seems like the nomination rationale is written like a a veiled legal threat. KidAd  •  SPEAK  18:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Unsurprising, since is currently blocked for making legal threats. - MrOllie (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia articles can be created for anyone without consent as long as they're notable and there's independent, reliable sources regarding them. As for his misinformation, it's stated in the article and complies with WP:NPOV. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject of the article most certainly meets notability criteria, and I do not see any breaches of the WP:BLP or WP:NPOV policies (at least none that could not be fixed through editing and would warrant deletion). The thinly-veiled legal threat is also disconcerting. -- Kinu t/c 18:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article meets every aspect of WP:GNG: the subject has received significant coverage, the subject is notable, and the sources used are reliable, verifiable, and independent of the subject. That the subject apparently doesn't like reliably-sourced facts about their public activities does not signify with respect to Wikipedia policy. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per above. Notability can be seen.-- Melaleuca alternifolia  |  talk  21:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that he is notable. It might be worthwhile to ask him what exactly in the article he thinks is false. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think this should answer your question. Primefac (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep under criterion 2 (editor nominating blocked for posting the same legal threat and for having previously disrupted the page in question); and also per WP:SNOW, per the above, since it is beyond doubt that this person is indeed notable (this suggests criterion 3 as well)... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:SNOW and because... that's... not how Wikipedia works. Don't want your Wikipedia biography to say you said controversial things? Don't say controversial things. I don't even think we could justify deletion under WP:BLP1E given the multiple things he's said that have received coverage.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If Dr. McCullough is reading this, I would like to direct him here.  KidAd  •  SPEAK  01:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Most assuredly so, . Absolutely right.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep As said, that's not how Wikipedia works. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The article states "misinformation". Let readers decide for themselves.  If this is removed, it is a disservice to those who are able to think critically and an assault on freedom of speech.  I suggest that the article be edited to be a more balanced discussion rather than a biased piece of propaganda.  He is respected by many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:a420:e02::2 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep as "I regard myself as non-notable..." makes this completely dead-on-arrival. The subject's personal whims do not dictate encyclopedia policy. Zaathras (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2021 (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.