Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Udo Erasmus


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Udo Erasmus

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article contains no secondary sources and has been tagged for this reason for longer than a year. I performed some researched looking for reliable supporting sources, I found only that this author's works are controversial (http://www.westonaprice.org/bookreviews/fat_kills.html) and could find no peer-review. The advertising links formerly on this page have been removed, but the page appears largely to be promotional in nature. E8 (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Extremely Weak Keep: There are quite a great deal of questionable sources out there for this gentleman. Many of the sources appear connected to Erasmus himself, or the company he is associated with, Flora, but in all that noise I see some that might be valid. Plus, the guy has published several books. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per extended coverage from many different reliable sources. I firmly believe this article has potential, and that's all I need. Vodello (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the Talk page for updated information.--E8 (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My advice is for you to be bold and fix it yourself if it's such a big concern. Vodello (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I would argue that the controversy surrounding him adds an additional, verifiable reason for notability, if the sources exist to prove the things you (E8) have noted in the talk page for the article. Therefore, I'm in agreement with Vodello that fixing the article would be the best choice, rather than deletion. In this instance, I'd rather keep the article so people can easily find the criticism of the individual, which in itself is a grounds for notability if properly sourced, rather than delete it and make that information harder to find. Jo7hs2 (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarifying concerns about this page, it's based entirely on self-published sources. I've removed portions of it as the page was unduly self-serving. The Google search link pasted above doesn't lead to any reliable sources other than court documents (everyone has a publicly-available record, so this can't establish notability), and given that the page was tagged for greater than a year for lack of sources and still, no reliable sources have been found, there's a bind in keeping this page. WP:QS is clear that such articles should not be based primarily on self-published sources (#6), the only sources for this article. There is a bit of an impasse, in that this subject (and the controversy/criticism) appears to be notable, but lacks one of the primary requirements of Wikipedia, verification. If reliable secondary sources can be located, it makes sense to keep this article, but I see at least 3 contributors here that have looked and found none. Perhaps a researcher, better than I, can locate some specific sources.--E8 (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  18:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete, I can't find any reliable sources about this man. A few newspapers quote him in passing in stories about other topics as a "nutritional expert", but there are few or no articles that deal with him as a subject. Quite a lot of promotional press releases, but that isn't independent of the subject. The closest to notability is Fats That Heal, Fats That Kill, but again I couldn't find any reviews of the book in reliable sources - it seems popular on alternative medical webistes, but low-quality sources like that can't establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, notability not established. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources, no article. Stifle (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2009 (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.