Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Doblin


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 03:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Rick Doblin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Only sourcable fact is that he is the president and founder of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, but WP:NOTINHERITED Curb Chain (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment A scan of Highbeam (subscription required) turns up a wide range of articles, some quoting Doblin (some about his research in his own right, others which could be argued to be quoting him in his organisational role), some about him as such: Boston Globe 1991, The Economist 1991, Boston Globe 2001 ("Over the years, Doblin has become one of the leading proponents for the therapeutic use of ecstasy"), Boston Globe 2006, The Scientist 2006, Washington Post 2007, Washington Post 2011. AllyD (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Of those, can you indicate the level of coverage. Specifically which gives a significant amount of coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Those are all behind paywalls. I cannot verify the veracity of that statement.Curb Chain (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak delete (changing to Redirect, see below) He does appear to be known as a go-to person for the media to talk to about psychedelic drugs.   But just being quoted about a subject does not meet WP:BIO; there has to be reliable information ABOUT the person and I couldn't find any. --MelanieN (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thought, Redirect to Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, which appears to be notable even if he is not. --MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Weak keep While I see MelanieN's argument towards a Redirect, I think there is just enough here to argue up to individual notability. For this, key are the New Scientist interview (assuming this is a true copy), the Boston Phoenix profile and Tom Shroder's "Editor's Note" in the Washington Post . AllyD (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theo polisme  02:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. The sources found by AllyD, at least the ones I can access, are more about MAPS than Doblin himself. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Doblin is notable over a number of years as observed above, and he is currently featured in a news story I just read. I don't think a redirect is called for, under the circumstances.  Jus  da  fax   09:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The references are substantial, as a check of them would have shown the person who questioned them. The New Scientist one especially makes the notability clear.  DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 29 November 2012 (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.