Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roc Ordman


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Roc Ordman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are no reliable independent sources cited in this article, and several pages of Google hits scroll by without providing anything that could remedy that. This is actually puzzling since there are a few published papers, but I did have to remove some from a known predatory publisher and I don't know how many of the balance are in legitimate journals. Involvement in "life extension" quackery does introduce a suggestion that this might be part of the walled garden of agecruft, but I have not looked into that. The article itself looks very much like a PR bio. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Whilst the notability of Ordman is open to being questioned, the nominator's rationale is not entirely factually accurate, as far as I can see. There is a sub-article about Ordman in the New York Times (who are a reliable independent source for biography generally, and particularly for whether individuals are notable). This is actually already cited in our article. Alfred Ordman (his real name is not "Roc") has a GScholar h-index of 7, with two papers from 1977 having 48 and 39 cites respectively. He might possibly satisfy GNG, though his h-index presumably rules out the citation count criteria of PROF. I have added some additional search links to the top of this AfD page. "Quackery" does not rule out notability, and a person could be notable for being a famous "quack". On the other hand, it may be that medical claims in his article need to be toned down or removed altogether. James500 (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. With quackery and other pseudo-science topics, a practitioner ironically has to be "known" (or noted) as being a quack. Nom's explanation seems apt. Agricola44 (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete. Negligible record on Google scholar provides no evidence of passing WP:PROF, and the primary sources we have are especially ungood for a WP:FRINGE topic. The NYT article on his patent for Vitamin C supplements is a start but too credulous to be worth much. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2016 (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.