Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Chachoua


 * 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. It is clear that he is notable for the single Charlie Sheen event but there is no consensus on the lawsuit, which would make it two. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sam Chachoua

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable quack, no sources outside of one incident (see WP:BLP1E). Guy (Help!) 10:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is the one incident? The "cure" of a celebrity, or the "cure" of a small nation? --Dweller (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Charlie Sheen thing, which is the only reason we have the article at all. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Two incidents, including the Cedars Sinai lawsuit, which is not to say that I like the idea of giving prominence to a quack. 2601:401:500:99F4:61D4:1936:CFEE:B249 (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect: One event based on the limited coverage received because of Charlie Sheen. I propose the article redirect to Charlie Sheen with summary content merged into a section on his HIV. Otherwise, this quack is given undue prominence on WP. Delta13C (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally agree with, the man's a quack. Wikipedia doesn't exist to endorse quakery, delete and salt it Kosh Vorlon   17:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    20:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC) :Note:  This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    20:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    20:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not notable. Would not redirect to Charlie Sheen, Sam Chachoua only has a single mention in the entire article. Aeonx (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - He's received a fair amount of media coverage, much of which is focused on him, and not Sheen. Being a quack doesn't mean you're non-notable, see Rhonda Byrne and Deepak Chopra -Quasipalm (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC) — Quasipalm (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Guy (Help!) 00:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The point was that there is no rule against including notable people just because they're quacks. And it seems pretty clear he's notable, given the hundreds of articles about him in Google News and his appearances on popular shows like Real Time and Dr. Oz. -Quasipalm (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Charlie Sheen. Our opinion as to whether or not he's a "quack" is irrelevant. This person doesn't appear to be notable enough to have his own article, and any reliable coverage found looks to have been centered around one event, which is his interactions with actor Charlie Sheen. The best solution looks to be a redirect.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, a perfect example of BLP1E. Max Semenik (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - While it might feel unbelievable, none of us KNOW that his work is at a quackery level. You assume it is.  If there is evidence, that's a different story.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wookienoize (talk • contribs) 02:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)  — Wookienoize (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Whether his work is quackery does not bear on the discussion concerning WP:BLP1E. He has received zero coverage in multiple independent sources that are separate from his run in with Charlie Sheen, except Quackwatch published something about his treatments some years ago. The numerous Google search results on Chachoua's name are narrowly a result of this one event with Sheen. Having said that, he is most certainly a quack-job. He has claimed to cure AIDS in the island nation of Comoros, which is not true. He claims to have been persecuted for his discoveries. He has not published any scientific papers detailing his claims. He charges a lot of money. These signs are all hallmarks of quackery. Delta13C (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect per arguments of Oshwah above. Failing that, delete. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There appear to be quite a few sources for the material in the page, independent from sheen. Arguably, his association with sheen is a minor part of his work. Why not redirect him to Cedars-Sinai for that matter? For the editorship to judge his quackness to the point of deleting him rather than providing the material and sources for the readership to decide for themselves is ultimate bias. He's got tens of thousands of news links via google, including last week's appearance on Bill Maher, which is going to get people looking for him; as it did me; and not finding any reference, caused me to write the quack up. Gzuckier (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He is not being considered for deletion because he is a quack, rather he does not meet notability guidelines, per WP:BLP. Delta13C (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 3/7 of the delete or redirect responses mention his quackitude as contributory. 30,000 google hits for sam chachoua MINUS sheen (including 3000 for sam chachoua quack MINUS sheen), suggesting that his notoriety is independent of sheen's. logic suggests sheen heard about the guy, after all. he shows up in like 100 google scholar hits including a couple of books. in any event, if not KEEP then delete, not redirect to sheen.  Gzuckier (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He is clearly only on his way to meeting GNG because Charlie Sheen somehow discovered him and publicized his "treatments". He will most likely always be strongly affiliated with this run in with Sheen, so I think a redirect is fine, unless Sam Chachoua starts to get a lot more independent coverage for other things besides claiming to have injected Sheen's HIV positive blood into his own body. Delta13C (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Seems to be notable for more than one event. Good sourcing is available to establish this notability.  I don't see a good argument for BLP1E being made, nor do I see a reason to muck up the Sheen article with details about this quack. Sperril (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep distastefully We don't need to like something for it to be notable. We don't have a BLP2E and I'd argue strongly against bringing in such a policy. Seems to be notable for at least two things. Keep. Now where's the Dettol for my eyes? --Dweller (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep — it's getting bigger. It doesn't matter if he's a quack, plenty of other charlatans have articles. This is blurring into "I don't like it" land. 166.175.58.191 (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: The argument to support either delete or redirect has never been about allegations of being a "quack." The argument has always been about WP:BLP1E, as there is a gaping paucity of reliable sources prior to his run in with Charlie Sheen. Just because Sheen found this guy does not justify Chachoua's notability. Editors have used the word "quack" as shorthand within the confines of the discussion not argumentation for any outcome of the AfD. Delta13C (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * when has quack been shorthand for not notable? at risk of repeating myself, 3/7 of the delete or redirect responses mention his quackitude as contributory. 30,000 google hits for sam chachoua MINUS sheen (including 3000 for sam chachoua quack MINUS sheen), suggesting that his notoriety is independent of sheen's. logic suggests sheen heard about the guy, after all. he shows up in like 100 google scholar hits including a couple of books. Gzuckier (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Quack" has never been used as shorthand for "not notable." Being a quack does not preclude someone from being notable. I am under the impression that "quack" was being used as a descriptive shorthand that carries no weight either way about his notability. I get the impression that you are trying to distract from the substance of this AfD, which is about this quack's notability based on reliables sources beyond one event. Delta13C (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Clear WP:BLP1E for the Charlie Sheen incident. The Cedars-Sinai lawsuit does not appear to be notable, as there only seem to be primary sources for it. I also see nothing on Google Scholar that would make him notable; just some patent applications, lawsuits, and participation in a conspiracy theory magazine. &#32;&#8239; Adrian [232] 17:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. While the Charlie Sheen stuff has brought him back into the limelight, he has a history that is documented in this article (e.g. the 1997 lawsuit). He's a quack, but I see no reason not to keep this article.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   03:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you figure he passes WP:BLP without enough reliable sources? Delta13C (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable quack doctor. He has gotten a ton of media coverage following his appearances on Dr. Oz and Bill Maher. For the latter see, for example ,. There are also plenty of RS wherewith to thoroughly debunk his claims, so we can't cite BLPFRINGE as a deletion rationale. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BLP1E. Delta13C (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He's notable for two things: The Cedars Sinai lawsuit, and the bogus treatment of Charlie Sheen. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, the Cedars Sinai case occurred before Google News started indexing in 2003, but it received media coverage at the time. See NBC. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, who else covered this lawsuit? Highbeam doesn't return any results. It seems to that the lawsuit is not quite enough to pass notability unless it was covered in multiple reliable sources that are intellectually independent from one another. If there are no reliable sources other than a YouTube video of NBC news, the event is not notable. When this is paired with the event of Charlie Sheen, well, that is a judgement call on the admin. Delta13C (talk) 18:43, 7 February 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.