Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sayer Ji


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__.  Arbitrarily0  ( talk ) 02:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Sayer Ji

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I'm not seeing it. This is a WP:COATRACK -- we've got the cost of a subscription to his website in the article? We've got details on his use of affiliate links?

None of the sources are about him in a significant way. We've got a lot of information coming from unreliable sources: a bio of the guy on a talent booking website, not one but two PDFs hosted on "filesusr.com" written by a political advocacy group... note that I literally can't even link these URLs in the AfD despite being an admin because they are on the global spam blacklist...

his own websites, etc. The closest thing we get to sigificant, neutral third-party coverage is this blog post (which is for some reason in the ref list twice, as #4 and also #13). This Wired article mentions him once, in a single paragraph, in the sentence: Prominent pandemic deniers include a number of keen yoga practitioners, such as alternative health proponent Sayer Ji, who runs the website greenmedinfo.com, and his wife Kelly Brogan, who describes herself as a ‘holistic psychiatrist.’ This The Hill article also mentions him once, in a list with twelve other people. That's it. Here is a single fact check page about something that was on his website. This isn't significant coverage and the guy is not notable. jp×g🗯️ 22:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Conspiracy theories, COVID-19, Medicine, Internet, Florida,  and New Jersey.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  00:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: He has been extensively commented on by skeptic blogger David Gorski: and, to give two examples.  Those are blog entries and therefore don't count for notability (although Gorski is a subject-matter expert; he is a surgeon and frequent contributor to sciencebasedmedicine.org.)  Ji was also named as one of the "disinformation dozen" responsible for most of social media's antivaccine misinformation by the Center for Countering Digital Hate: .  I'm reluctant to vote keep because I am unsure whether those together would count for notability.  But Ji is a major player in the antivax disinformation world, and having an article (properly-sourced and in line with WP:FRINGE) on him would help fill the vacuum where such disinformation thrives. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Center for Countering Digital Hate is the political advocacy group I mentioned in the nomination, with the two PDFs hosted on "filesusr.com" (I don't know what the deal is with that site, but typically, being on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist does not say a lot of great things about a source's reliability). I don't think that this PDF rises to the level of something we should be using to source an article on a BLP; if the primary sources in the newspapers etc. were writing about the guy in any context other than briefly mentioning his name as appearing in a list, that'd be one thing, but we don't even have that, we just have a random PDF from the Internet that doesn't seem to have been reviewed or published anywhere besides some guy's website. jp×g🗯️ 04:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment below are significant coverage, the first only partially an interview, the latter, academic
 * Djflem (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The NPR article's good but I'm still concerned that all these sources are about the WP:ONEEVENT of this group publishing the PDF about him being in a disinformation dozen. jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 03:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You're citing ONEEVENT? Doesn't seem the two above references mention anything about a PDF being published about him, so seems hardly like an event. Djflem (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You're citing ONEEVENT? Doesn't seem the two above references mention anything about a PDF being published about him, so seems hardly like an event. Djflem (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep GreenMedInfo has or had a high traffic web presence. Even if readership has declined over the years, I think the site and its creator are still notable. Being included on the "disinformation dozen" list supports this as well. People use CDNs to host content. A lot of content isn't even publicly available. Let's judge the source, not the web host.ScienceFlyer (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, maybe? I admit it's close to the notability line. There was significant buzz around him when I started the page, I'm surprised at the low amount of coverage since then. Still, I added a little extra material including elements from a nine-page section on him and Brogan in a book published this summer. Curious to see how it turns out. Robincantin (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep sources already cited plus those since HEY satisfy GNG. Djflem (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, although personally I couldn't care less. I think the consensus has changed in that articles that shame a living person who is otherwise notable can remain. I note, for the record, that this is a change from the usual outcome during 2007-2009. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.