Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uffe Ravnskov


 * 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. Since this was a lengthy and contentious discussion, I think it may be helpful for my closing rationale to be laid out in detail. To begin with, I am entirely disregarding comments by a blocked sock, !votes from IPs/new accounts that clearly have an agenda to advance, and a !vote that is identical to ones made by the user at other AfDs.

Nonetheless, there is consensus here to keep. WP:PROF is independent from WP:GNG; a scholar needs meet only one to be considered notable. A convincing argument has been made that Ravnskov meets criterion 1 of WP:PROF, on the basis of his citation record: this argument has not been convincingly refuted. Any argument about whether or not he meets GNG is therefore a non sequitur.

Some editors have argued to delete this on the basis that Ravnskov is a fringe theorist. That fact itself is not a valid reason to delete; notability is independent of the POV of an individual. We do need to have enough intellectually independent content about an individual to write an article about them that conforms to NPOV. A convincing argument to delete on these grounds would have to demonstrate that it is impossible to write a reliably sourced neutral piece about Ravskov (even if such a piece is a stub): no such demonstration has been made.

The current state of the article leaves much to be desired, but while WP:TNT is sometimes a persuasive argument, AfD is ultimately not meant for cleanup. Sockpuppetry can be dealt with via protection; editors pushing a fringe POV need to be dealt with at ANI or elsewhere. Deletion is not a solution for our difficulties in producing neutral content. Vanamonde (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Uffe Ravnskov

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm finding some papers authored by the subject, and one or two passing mentions, but that's it. EEng 16:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. I, too, have searched for more than passing mentions in reliable sources, but have not been successful. GNG not met. Striker force Talk 16:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * After additional review, I believe that DGG makes a valid point below. In its current state, the article needs substantial work to improve references. But, I think it can be rescued. So, I am a hesitant Keep on this one. Striker force Talk 15:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:NBIO and WP:NSCHOLAR. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Original research on the article. Nothing on Google books or on JSTOR, lack of medical papers and secondary sources that discuss his fringe ideas. Some minor newspaper coverage but not enough to establish an entire article about him. Because of lack of reliable sources would be best to delete. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Some sources exclusively shares his views but still not convincing enough for passing GNG. Qualitist (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Mr Ravnskov is a published scientist in both the Lancet and the https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k946/rr-5 BMJ  On what basis are you suggesting deleting his contribution to an important field of debate?  _Amandazz100 — Amandazz100 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Of the three references given by Amandazz100, two (Lancet and BMJ) are only correspondence, i.e. letters to the journals. The other is an actual paper, however this is published in BMJ Open, which is a pay-to-publish journal. Swampf0etus (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have just removed this edit by Amandazz100, she had already voted once so voting twice is not aloud. Also this was nothing more than disruptive spam. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree the voting twice was not aloud. It was in writing. EEng 21:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. All I can find are self-published sources and mentions in passing. This topic lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Brad  v 🍁 20:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This discussion has been advertised by Malcolm Kendrick and his associates on various social media platforms. Likely there will be an increase of SPA accounts voting here. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I got the idea to nominate this guy from predictions, in that blog, that "Uffe will be next". It was very helpful of them. We could probably get a list of other likely nonnotables by looking the blog over carefully. E<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant coverage of the person in reliable sources, so no biography is possible. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for POV-pushers to peddle their fringe theories disguised as a biography. --RexxS (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see how you could possibly delete this page by claiming that there are only passing references or self-published work. Simply going to shows that he has been published in prominent scientific journals going back to the 1970s and not just open or pay journals but the journal of Clinical Epidemiology, The Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism, Mayo Clinic Proceedings and more. In the 1970s he was the first to isolate a new glycoprotein found in diseased livers . He is clearly a notable academic, and one who rigorously challenges mainstream beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:449:4300:7A99:959E:233C:796F:B303 (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)  — 2601:449:4300:7A99:959E:233C:796F:B303 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2601:449:4300:7A99:959E:233C:796F:B303 (UTC).
 * So, now having found those references, why don't you be bold and add them to the article? Remember, the AfD process exists to not only discuss whether an article should remain, but also to improve the article in the hopes of preventing deletion. When editors find sources that are appropriate during the process of evaluating an article, they should be added. Striker force Talk 16:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment So to be clear YOU are entitled to continue having your say by removing other people's contributions to the talk  and determining that they are spam.   is there a rule where  people are allowed to only talk once?  Whereas I am not allowed to contribute further information regarding his status or the quality of his referenced work   based as it is on rigorous and extensive science. ?   You could have deleted my " vote" instead you deleted numeorus references to his writings in peer reviewed scientific journals of repute plus many references to the fact that his stated position has ignificant scientific legs actoss a huge scientific base as demonstrated in the extensive List I posted.   Your approach to science appears very odd. Unsigned comment added by Amandazz100 — Amandazz100 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I didn't remove anything. I properly formatted both the !vote (we use the term "Keep", not "Do NOT Delete") and the external links that you included in your comments. I changed nothing, as far as the material being presented. The tag is rather common in situations like this where it is clear that canvassing has occurred. Duplicate !votes by the same person are not permitted. You are, of course, allowed to comment more than once, but not in the form of a !vote. You must instead either place "Comment" at the front of the material presented or just present the material outright. Again, I will reiterate that the links you provided were not deleted.  Striker force Talk 17:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would ask that you please consider restoring the formatting of your links that I had previously used, for readability purposes. Striker force Talk 17:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed this edit she made earlier today, it was 35,003 bytes of text, a massive spam list of 116 publications many of which not relevant. Such text is too excessive and does not contribute to this discussion IMO. I don't think any admin will restore it due to size but if I have done wrong in removing it I apologise. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest placing that text Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Uffe Ravnskov here, then. Striker force Talk 18:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Professor Ravnskov is a distinguished researcher, writer and teacher. An attempt to delete his entry is likely to be seen as the next strike against anyone daring to question current orthodoxy in the context of the diet-heart AKA lipid hypothesis, after Dr Kendrick was deleted. This smells like a determined campaign… perhaps EEng and Skeptic from Britain should now consider moving on to attack Tim Noakes and Richard D. Feinman. N.B. I did not come to this page as part of a campaign to defend Prof. Ravnskov, but because I wished to confirm his credentials for a curious student of mine. Describing me as any kind of puppet would be silly. Anarchie76 (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. At a glance Noakes may be notable (hard to tell because many of the sources seem iffy) but Feinman seems not to be. I've nominated him -- see WP:Articles for deletion/Richard D. Feinman. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You did the same for Malcolm Kendrick Your vote keep though is not based on any Wikipedia policy. If he is such a distinguished researcher then list 10 reliable secondary references that mention Ravnskov, there is literally nothing out there. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Here you go (all from peer-reviewed publications):
 * 1) Bengt G. Johansson & Uffe Ravnskov (1972) The Serum Level and Urinary Excretion of α2-Microglobulin, β2-Microglobulin and Lysozyme in Renal Disease, Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology, 6:3, 249-256, DOI: 10.3109/00365597209132096
 * 2) Proteinuria After Human Renal Transplantation: I. Urinary Excretion of α2-Microglobulin (Retinol-binding Protein), β2-Microglobulin, Lysozyme and Albumin (1972) https://doi.org/10.3109/00365597409132815
 * 3) α1-Microglobulin, a new low molecular weight plasma protein.(1976) https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-8981(76)90142-X
 * 4) Renal handling of Zn-alpha2-glycoprotein as compared with that of albumin and the retinol-binding protein (1976) https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI108371
 * 5) Gel chromatography on Sephadex gels with narrow particle size distribution obtained by dry elutriation (1976) https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(76)90491-7
 * 6) Exposure to Organic Solvents—A Missing Link in Poststreptococcal Glomerulonephritis? (1978) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0954-6820.1978.tb14888.x
 * 7) Uffe Ravnskov, Björn Forsberg, Staffan Skerfving (1979) Glomerulonephritis and Exposure to Organic Solvents, A Case‐Control Study, Journal of Internal Medicine, Volume205, Issue 1‐6, 575-579. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0954-6820.1979.tb06106.x
 * 8) Influence of Hydrocarbon Exposure on the Course of Glomerulonephritis (1986) https://doi.org/10.1159/000183707
 * 9) Glomerular, tubular and interstitial nephritis associated with non‐steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Evidence of a common mechanism (1999) https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2125.1999.00869.x
 * 10) Vulnerable Plaque Formation from Obstruction of Vasa Vasorum by Homocysteinylated and Oxidized Lipoprotein Aggregates Complexed with Microbial Remnants and LDL Autoantibodies (2009) Review and Hypothesis: Uffe Ravnskov and Kilmer S. McCully Ann Clin Lab Sci Winter 2009 39:3-16
 * Sorry to interfere with your witch-hunt. Anarchie76 (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * These are all articles written by the subject. Notability is established using sources written about the subject. Can you come up with any of those? Brad  v 🍁 00:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Jesus, get a clue, will you? We need sources about the subject, not by the subject. Christ. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In regard to users arguing about "witch-hunts", they do not understand Wikipedia policies but they are very quick to criticize Wikipedia. They advertised this on reddit . Skeptic from Britain (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Quick to criticise Wikipedia"? I've been a Wikipedia user and financial contributor since 2004, and an editor since 2006, though admittedly not nearly as active as I should be, since I have many other calls on my time. I have until now NEVER criticised Wikipedia, and indeed am NOT now doing so. Instead, I am focusing on what appears to be a witch-hunt (and no, I didn't learn the term from Reddit, but from my primary school in 1966).
 * I'd like to reply first of all with a few secondary references:
 * 1) "A Skeptical View of Cholesterol Phobia", Marshall E. Deutsch. http://nowscape.com/atheism/articles/Skeptical_View_of_Cholesterol.pdf
 * 2) Michael Gurr (Mike Gurr) "Lipids in Nutrition and Health: A Reappraisal". By M I Gurr. (1999, 2009) PJ Barnes & Associates
 * 3) Dr Chris Masterjohn (book review): http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/The-Cholesterol-Myths.html
 * 4) '"Misleading statistics, exclusion of unsuccessful trials, and [...] ignoring numerous contradictory observations" are at the root of a half-century-long assumption that may be entirely wrong, says new research', Ana Sandou, https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323235.php
 * 5) Laurence D. Chalem http://thrivewithdiabetes.blogspot.com/2016/06/credit-is-due-to-uffe-ravnskov-et-al.html
 * 6) In "Circulation of Knowledge: Explorations in the History of Knowledge", Johan Östling, Erling Sandmo, David Larsson Heidenblad, Anna Nilsson Hammar, Kari Hernæs Nordberg. Chapter 1: by Laura Hollsten, https://books.google.fr/books?id=pQBNDwAAQBAJ
 * 7) "Cholesterol Skeptics And The Bad News About Statin Drugs", Napoli M., http://www.healthyskepticism.org/global/library/item/1260
 * 8) "The Problem With Statins" (2017) Mid-day.com, https://www.mid-day.com/articles/the-problem-with-statins/18347153
 * 9) Response to the Quackwatch website, with a profile of Prof. Ravnskov: http://doctorwatch.blogspot.com/2010/05/next-md-doctor-watch-introduces-you-to.html
 * 10) "Does Cholesterol Matter?", Discover Magazine. http://discovermagazine.com/2003/dec/greatest-unanswered-medical-questions
 * Then, a quote: "One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back."
 * —Carl Sagan, “The Demon-Haunted World"
 * Unfortunately, a major bamboozling has been the notion that cholesterol is harmful. This has been driven by the gigantic profits made from statin drugs.
 * And, finally, a (rhetorical) question: How many peer-reviewed journals (which did not then exist) would have published papers by Alfred Wegener or Semelweiss? The paucity of references to Uffe Ravnskov in the peer-reviewed literature is an indictment, not of the inadequacy of Ravnskov's work, but of the blinkered attitudes of the star chamber constituted by the peer-reviewed journals themselves. Challengers to orthodoxy, especially when faced with entrenched financial interests, are bound to encounter massive obstacles, and I can't help remembering Max Planck's dictum about progress in science and death. Anarchie76 (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I am afraid most of those sources are not reliable. Blogspots are rarely used on Wikipedia and some of those do not specifically mention Ravnskov, for example this . We can not use sources that do not mention Ravnskov because it is original research otherwise. I am not convinced about the other sources. You might want to take a look at WP:OR and WP:RS. And statins are not as evil as you make out, this systematic review found "Statins can lower LDL cholesterol concentration by an average of 1.8 mmol/l which reduces the risk of IHD events by about 60% and stroke by 17%." . Skeptic from Britain (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You said that the Discover Magazine reference did not mention Ravnskov. It does——on page 2 of the piece. As for statins "not being as evil" as I make out, I have barely mentioned them. That discussion is not really germane to this page or this topic, but if you wish to inform yourself more fully, you could do worse than visit . Anarchie76 (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. I haven't seen anything here or in quick searches since this was posted that would satisfy WP:NPROF. Everything at the article is just basic stuff from anyone who's done research, gone to graduate school, etc. Being a WP:FRINGEBLP, I haven't seen any sources showing fringe notability by sources putting their work in context either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * After seeing the new comments up to Dec 16, I'm still in a delete position. It's usually best to avoid Google Scholar for things like an h-index and stick to more reliable databases like Web of Science, which doesn't really give anything out of the ordinary in terms of NPROF. The three most highly cited papers are at 241, 100, and 93, with the remaining at somewhat normal levels. I'd put that in a WP:TOOSOON category if it was in my field, and that has an even lower bar than something like medicine. Everything here just reads as normal academic researcher who had some views out of line with the prevailing science. Going on citation count alone is always a problem in AfD discussions though and should never go beyond supplementary decisions of notability though. I'm just not seeing the secondary sources needed to write the basic content that establishes notability though. Even the journal letter titled "On criticism in bio-medical research – A tribute to Uffe Ravnskov" mentioned below ironically only gives passing mention to this person when you read the full article. At best, this BLP doesn't pass the average professor test of NPROF. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete In such a case as this, we should be careful when evaluating the subject's citation record to check WP:PROF. Basically, our standards for biomedical sources apply, and relying upon Google Scholar (which tallies everything it can find) is a bad move. Going by Web of Science, which records peer-reviewed publications, his h-index is only 20, which in this field isn't enough to stand out as "widely cited". So, the subject fails WP:PROF, and I can't find anything that indicates a pass on any of the other criteria, either. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Uffe Ravnskov has commented on this, funny stuff. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Surprise! Surprise! Attack a man's life's work and reputation, and expect him to keep quiet about it? Really? Anarchie76 (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is not an attack on the man's work or his reputation. Notability guidelines are clear, it's not what the academic publishes but what is published about the academic. The subject fails WP:NSCHOLAR. Ifnord (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep We cannot just erase people or ideas from Wikipedia because of a difference in viewpoints, that's absurd.~  Mellis  ( talk ) 23:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be absurd. But no one is proposing that. Brad  v 🍁 23:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mellis has put that same comment on 5 afd discussions, , , , . Skeptic from Britain (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. GScholar indicates that several of his papers have been cited over 200 times, which is usually taken as meeting WP:PROF. Some of the arguments given above are seriously misguided: for example, there are many respectable open access journals (and BMJ Open is a very respectable one). --Randykitty (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * There are no reliable references out there that mention Ravnskov in detail, this is the problem. A handful of his papers might have been cited by only in passing to the subject matter of cholesterol. I am not seeing any papers that specifically discuss Ravnskov in detail. As it stands there are no reliable references on the article. How can there be a biography of Ravnskov on Wikipedia with no reliable sources? Skeptic from Britain (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? After just searching for a couple of minutes I found . That alone is already more coverage than most academics get in their lifetime and goes a long way to satisfy GNG, let alone PROF. --Randykitty (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I have already read that paper it does not discuss Ravnskov in any detail whatsoever. It mentions Ravnskov a whopping total of 4 times, anyone can read the paper in full . Sorry but no, I don't think that paper is enough to justify an entire article for Ravnskov. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The relevant standard here is WP:PROF. The usual criterion is having an influence on the filed from the published work, and for biomedicine this is judged by the sitation to publisher peer-reviewed articles. People in this field publish many papers, and consequently there is a corresponding great number of citations, so he usual acceptance level here is 2 or more papers with over 100 citation seach as shown in GS or(or Scopus, or Wos). His highest citation figures are 233, 225, 139, ....all three from very respectable biomedical journals. There are 7 others with citation figures in the 60s and 90s, also all of them from very respectable journals. The WP:PROF guideline is completely independent of the GNG, and there is no need to show secondary sources. But if we were to look for them, the discussions of his work in many ofthe citing papers would provide them. I also want to point out that the hypothesis behind his work is not pseudoscience, nor even alternative medicine, but a dissenting view from within the medical establishment, not unique to him, and which has very wide current discussion. The article furthermore is written in the normal manner, not as advocacy.   DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bd2412  T 02:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: As an inclusionist, I believe that Wikipedia and its users will benefit from keeping this page. First, I'll provide some background about why I am personally interested in Wikipedia and the concept of inclusionalism. Then I'll specifically show how this applies to Ravnskov, from the perspective of a user of Wikipedia. (After all, Wikipedia exists for its users, not its editors!)Barry Pearson 19:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * During my career, I was passionate about knowledge-sharing. Before the web, I had already started to investigate the use of hypertext for the purpose. Once the web was devised, I developed my first website in 1994 on my company's intranet. This confirmed my view about the value of the web for knowledge-sharing. Later, once I investigated Wikipedia, it was like a dream come true! A knowledge-base without limits, edited by people with a huge range of different knowledge. I registered over 9 years ago and began editing. Over 7 years ago I realised that I matched the description of an inclusionist. My experience as a user (rather than just an editor) of Wikipedia illustrates why, see below.Barry Pearson 19:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've read NewScientist pretty-well every week for 55 years. (And many science-rich books). I've seen paradigms come and go. A Scientific Theory (in the scientific definition of "Theory") might appear solid for a long time. But someone becomes skeptical, and starts querying it, sometimes to the derision of proponents of the current paradigm. Often, of course the derision is justified! Many alternatives fail. But some succeed, and eventually (after resistance) a new Theory is established. (Sometimes accompanied by a Nobel Prize). As Max Planck (nearly) said: "science advances one funeral at a time". Wikipedia describes several Theories/paradigms which will eventually be replaced. A problem is that we don't know which they are! Wikipedia would be unwise to claim to have the final word on much of its science content.Barry Pearson 19:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Example 1: Suppose I've read the name Ravnskov somewhere, and I want to see what Wikipedia has to say, I access it and put Ravnskov into the search. If I find a page, then I've got what I wanted, and Wikipedia has credibility. Win-win. But if I don't find a page, I obviously don't think "Ravnskov doesn't exist"! Nor do I think "Ravnskov isn't notable". In real-world terms, Ravnskov is worthy of note or memorable. I see this as a failure of Wikipedia, and go elsewhere, disappointed.Barry Pearson 19:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Example 2: I see the name Ravnskov in a page on the web. I select the name and right-click on my browser and select "search for …". If there is a page in Wikipedia, it might appear near the top of the search list. I'll probably go there first. If there isn't a page, Wikipedia is worse than invisible. It might as well not exist.Barry Pearson 19:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Example 3: sometimes I do what probably most people do: simply type Ravnskov into a search engine. This is like Example 2.Barry Pearson 19:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Example 4: Suppose no one ever searches for Ravnskov! Then it doesn't matter if the page exists. There is no limit on the number of pages in Wikipedia. In effect, users have voted with their fingers that (at least for the time being) Ravnskov isn't notable in the real world. (In future, who know?) There doesn't appear to be a downside in having a redundant page.Barry Pearson 19:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Should everyone be in Wikipedia? There are serious problems with this idea! For example, a concept in some jurisdictions is "the right to be forgotten". In most cases, I think a useful test might be "might this person ask to be forgotten, and if so, would their request be upheld?" In the case of Ravnskov, perhaps he should be either be asked whether he minds having a page, or perhaps should be able to register a desire to have a page. (I've never communicated with Ravnskov, but I'm guessing that he would want to keep the page).Barry Pearson 19:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Should both established paradigms and challenges be offered equal weight? Typically not. The skeptical position may not warrant a page, even if the skeptical person does warrant a BLP. But the existence of a challenge may well be notable in the real world. There may be fierce arguments raging. Wikipedia mustn't take sides and pretend there is no conflict. That would be a false position.Barry Pearson 19:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There are many knowledge-bases in the world. They are typically less broad in their topics than Wikipedia. It is an advantage for Wikipedia in this competition to have the broadest possible coverage. Reducing the topics (including BLPs) by deleting pages doesn't help! Inclusionism may save Wikipedia.Barry Pearson 19:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a rationale based in policy in there somewhere, Barry? Striker force Talk 19:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A simplistic summary of what I said is: "deletionism is bad for the users of Wikipedia; inclusionism is good for the users of Wikipedia". Or: "deletionism is reducing the credibility of Wikipedia in the real world; inclusionism would improve, or at least maintain, its credibility in the real world". Note that I'm speaking for the sake of users, not editors. While I'm an editor and I've spent time and money on Wikipedia, I'm also a frequent user. As an engineer before I retired, I always examined the user-requirements up-front, and checked later whether they were being satisfied. I think it is now that "later" when we need to recheck. Barry Pearson 14:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Barry the problem is that reliable secondary sources are lacking that mention Ravnskov. Reliable sources that is what it boils down to, Wikipedia articles would not exist without them. Your rant is off-mission and irrelevant to this deletion discussion. You are arguing to keep, then present 10 or so reliable references (non-primary) that mention Ravnskov? It is a struggle to find them. I would change my vote if reliable sources were presented. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether it is useful to respond to the above comment. User Skeptic from Britain who was involved in starting this deletion process appears to have disappeared under that name. User MatthewManchester1994 who made the comment that I am now replying to appears to have disappeared under that name. Are they the same person? What names do they use now? How can I examine their background in order to ensure that what I say is relevant to them? What is going on? Barry Pearson 08:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * They are the same person. was renamed to, which was subsequently renamed to . Apparently they were outed, subjected to significant off-wiki harassment, and subsequently have left WP. --Randykitty (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I live in Manchester! I have been unable to discover the name of this person. All I have found is his initials. As far as I can tell, he has not been outed. If someone knows who he is, (I suspect someone does), they are being very discreet. But why should he care? What has he got to hide, and is it relevant and important here? Barry Pearson 19:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * He absolutely WAS outed. Took me 30 seconds to find that, plus the online abuse that is being directed towards him. It is only relevant here because it explains why he is not responding any more. In his place I'd be afraid that some of the creeps outing him might show up at his door. And although I also !voted "keep", I feel very uncomfortable with many of the other "keep" !votes, in addition to the personal aspersions directed towards Skeptic. Most "keep" !votes are not policy based (and indeed some don't even seem to understand what the word "policy" here means, it certainly is not some personal statement of interest...). As for what the nom has to hide: nothing apart from his real life identity, to avoid what is happening right now (i.e. finding his name all over some fanatical fringe sites). Some people have a real life, you know. As for most of the "editors" that are creeping out of the woodwork here to "defend" this biography, having only a handful of edits and apparently blissfully unaware of how WP functions, that usually is a sure sign that something really fishy and some significant off-wiki canvassing is going on. If something or someone really is notable, that is easy enough to show and you don't need personal attacks on the nom or great walls of text with all kinds of trivial arguments. --Randykitty (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you find his name? As far as I can tell, this has not been published anywhere. I tried (and failed) to find it in order to see if he had indeed been outed. Perhaps this is a matter of terminology. In the real world "outed" means to reveal the name of someone who was trying to hide something. It isn't to claim that some unidentified person has something to hide. I'm sure someone knows who this person is, but they haven't published it. I think the threat to him is being exaggerated. I live in Manchester (where it is suggested that he does) and I've edited and in other forums posted under my own name over decades. Sometimes with views that would be unpopular in some quarters, with on-line abuse, but without any real concern for my well-being. If he is concerned that his name will be published if he continues, why did he then continue here, under a variety of names? Whatever is going on, it isn't simple. (As I say on my User Page, "Editing Wikipedia is not my hobby". I too have a real life outside Wikipedia!) Barry Pearson 09:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a tough one. I believe that the lipid hypothesis is incorrect and that those researching low carbohydrate and high fat are correct. BUT, this is not aurornisxui's encyclopedia. I do not believe that notability has been established. On Google Scholar, the article with the most citations only has 200 some citations. Other online sources are quotes from Ravnskov, nothing about the man himself. I checked other sources - the organizations he belongs to, the awards he's won. In some cases, I might not be getting a clear enough picture because of the language difference. That said, the ideas of Ravnskov and Kendrick can be added to the Lipid hypothesis article or used to start a reliably sourced article on the subject of high fat. Keep I've spent the last day researching this and rereading policies, and I think WP:PROF does apply. In his field, the study of cholesterol, he is an important figure. I do not have access to Web of Science, so I carefully checked the citations on Google Scholar, not just looking at the number count, but looking at the articles themselves and, where possible, checking the reference list of those articles. I also believe WP:SELFPUB applies. Aurornisxui (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nonsense. First of all, 200 citations is a lot, 99% of published articles get fewer citations (if they're cited at all). Second, if you want sources, you only have to search. I listed a good one above with my !vote. Here's another one in the Irish Times. And here's a book review. And another one here. --Randykitty (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Not reliable sources, two of those are pseudoscientific websites. A tabloid piece written by a non-professional in the Irish Times is a not a reliable source for medical matters. The review by sott.net is totally unreliable. It is a conspiracy theory paranormal website, look on the front page, they have articles supportive of UFOs, faith healing and intelligent design. The piece by Weston A. Price Foundation is not reliable, this foundation promotes dubious pseudoscience such as homeopathy and vaccination denialism. Reviews in an academic medical or science journals would be more reliable but none exist. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The way you interpret WP:PROF, not even Richard G. Morris and some Nobelists would be notable... The highly-cited articles and the 3 page article on him in the Scandinavian Cardiovascular Journal are more than enough to meet PROF. --Randykitty (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The 3 page article you cited only gives a passing mention of him so unlikely it can be used as a reference for major details about his life, another user has noted this . How can you have a Wikipedia article with little to no reliable sources? Let's say this article was kept, it will have virtually no reliable sources on it to establish a biography. So far everything on the article is unsourced. As for passing WP:PROF, it is a borderline. His most cited papers are only a handful they are on 234 but if you look on Google scholar many of his other papers are cited less than 18 times. As for Richard G. Morris he has many reliable sources on his article. He article is the opposite of Ravnskov. I stick to my original vote of delete because of lack of reliable references for Ravnskov. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC):
 * A few highly cited papers are what shows notability. It's exactly those highly cited papers which make the person influential in his profession and an authority in the field. Any number of weakly cited papers not only doesn't show notability, but aren't even relevant. Even the best people publish papers on minor points that they come across,  or  publish work they have jointly done with a student that didn't really succeeds, but gives the student a publication as a start to their career--it's one of the obligations of the head of a research group,  In fact, the current best practice is to also publish the studies that get negative results, and in future years, people who only publishes work that shows statistical significance will become viewed a little skeptically.
 * there are analogies everywhere A painter becomes notable from having even one work in a major museum, no matter how many poor ones they also produce; a performer from having just one or two records that charts (or at least, charts in a high position), a writer from having just one or two best sellers, An entrepreneur from found one really major company; a politician from winning just one state or national election.   What is unique about the sciences is that the influence of a major work can be shown numerically. This in fact enable WP to avoid all sorts of bias. One of them is in judging work that we individually think a little wrong-headed., or in showing that someone can be a notable scientist even if at the end of his career he also does some pseudoscience. Even Einstein retracted some of his papers. Even Newton wrote on alchemy.
 * And WP:PROF, to make things clear, does not require anything be written about the person. RS or otherwise. It's not a special case of the GNG. It's a special case outside of the GNG. .  DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems that the subject ultimately passes WP:PROF based on their impact in the field. - Bilby (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * KeepTo delete Uffe Ravnskov because someone does not agree with his ideas is the ultimate in censorship which surely is not what Wikipedia is about. Why not delete the Flat Earthers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies or the Creationists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism Whoever it is who disagrees with Dr Ravnskov and others like him, such as Dr Malcolm Kendrick who has now been deleted, should simply do an edit critical of their ideas.  Paleogirl (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleogirl (talk • contribs) 10:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)  I don't know how to sign !
 * Comment (I stated my "keep" preference above). Here is an observation from my attempts to see if I could improve the references on Ravnskov's page. He is an 84 year old Danish man who did his major work decades ago in Denmark and Sweden and is currently living in Sweden. Finding references on the web in English and to the standards that might be expected in biographies involving more recent work is proving hard. For example I tried to examine a statement I found elsewhere that he had "won the prestigious Leo Prize for Independent Science". I tracked down an elusive indication that such a prize once existed, but very little about it, and no proof he was awarded it. When researching for a totally different page that I created in Wikipedia I discovered that key documents were in boxes in a Library. I wonder if something similar applies here: paper documents in boxes somewhere? Barry Pearson 03:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - largely per User:DGG. Clearly satisfies WP:PROF. Seems this guy is prominent and influential within his field and holds significant minority viewpoints that stimulates healthy academic debate and scientific progress within his field. Significant minority viewpoints, whether later proven true or false with time, are not the same as fringe quackery.-- Literaturegeek |  T@1k?  07:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has serious problems with both autobiographical editing and unsourced content. And he's clearly a fringe theorist. But the sources presented in the discussion above are enough to convince me that he's a notable fringe theorist, whether by WP:PROF or WP:GNG (or even maybe WP:AUTHOR). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2018 (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.