Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Halvorsen


 * 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. Sr13 02:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Richard Halvorsen

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Individual medical practitioner without clear claims of notability (many people write books, it is unclear why his would be important). Article reads like an advertisement. Implicit endorsement of Andrew Wakefield, presently undergoing GMC hearings for scientific misconduct and therefore not at all neutral. 'Delete. JFW | T@lk  22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Many of our contemporary colleagues are estimable characters, and some may be shown in future times to have been notable. At present, this doctor is not among them, or we have not reached that time.  Given the subject matter and nature of the initial writing, I think this fits the description of "contentious editing of a medical topic" which is the subject of Ombudsman's parole.Delete  Midgley 22:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that Ombudsman is coming awfully close to violation of his parole as per Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others. JFW | T@lk  23:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:BIO (no more than trivial mention in independent secondary sources, that I can see). Currently article also appears to be a WP:COATRACK for anti-vaccinationism, a subject which has been POV-forked to death in the past. MastCell Talk 00:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. He's just another doctor.  Doctors and professors and the like are not notable for being doctors or professors.  There are hundreds of thousands of them. Qworty 01:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete only trivial mentions from those articles and not much else to establish notability Corpx 05:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of medicine-related deletions.   —Espresso Addict 10:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The book mentioned has a current Amazon ranking of 2845 and reviews in major daily newspapers (eg, ). Halvorsen's stance on vaccination has been covered by the press (eg  , and he's been quoted as a vaccination expert in the popular press (eg , ). Espresso Addict 10:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * An amazon.co.uk ranking of 2845 translates into what - one or two copies per day? Moreover, this is the week of release; to avoid recentism, we should wait a few months to see if anyone's still buying the book.  If we find the book has had an impact, let's create an article about the book and include a couple of lines about the author.  (Unless he becomes notable for something else, he won't need a separate bio.) Sideshow Bob Roberts 11:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. He's just a doctor who's been quoted in the press a couple of times recently.  The article appears to have been created to give a platform to the subject's views. Sideshow Bob Roberts 11:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This appears to be an unbalanced WP:COATRACK article being used to push a particular point of view espoused by the article's only author.  It seems unlikely that the subject would warrant an article on his own. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable and seems to mainly push the anti-vaccine position.--Mantanmoreland 21:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete per sideshow bob roberts, give it time and if the book turns out to be notable, we'll see. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:50, 26 July 2007 (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.