Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vernon Coleman

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. Per consensus. (non-admin closure) Ethically^Yours! 17:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Coleman

Vernon Coleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a problem biography. The subject is a crackpot (check the ASA complaint against him, for example), and I thought he was a notable crackpot, but in the end I can only find one mainstream source that's about him. Everything else seems to track back to himself. IMDB is listed as a source for his having had a book made into a film> That's a directory entry, not a source. One newspaper article referenced, I cannot trace in the archives (may be just my bad search-fu). Another one exists but is clearly a caricature not a serious profile, though it accurately sums up the fact that his books are self-published and he is a dedicated self-publicist.

For example, it is well known that he is a militant animal rights proponent, but he is not discussed in sources on the subject, presumably because claims such as every time you put peat in your mouth you're eating cancer, are so crazy that nobody will reference them.

In short, a neutral biography of this man requires analytical independent sources of some weight, because otherwise it';s just a storefront (which, to be fair, sums up most of what he does). More tot he point, most of the sources are old and seem to refer ot the 15 minutes of fame when the PCC and ASA censured him. So in the end this looks like a WP:BLP1E or coatrack or.. something, but not in a good way. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm not sure I understand the deletion rationale. He clearly meets WP:BIO/WP:GNG regardless of the soundness of his claims and current state of the article. Since most of his work was pre-Internet it's not so easy to gsearch, but even still I found several sources in the first few pages of hits: According to this source he's "sold more than two million books in the UK alone", The Independent (arts and ents section, 1996), The Independent again, interview with Animal Liberation Front (eh), Lengthy review of Betrayal of Trust in The Ecologist vol 28 no 6 (Nov/Dec 1998), Several works reviewed in The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health (search results) (about as respected as journals get, I think -- now known as Perspectives on Public Health), The Independent again... Looks like while his books are self-published, they've received pretty considerable attention in respectable publications. I don't know that any would independently meet NBOOKS, but the combined coverage lends notability to the author, especially since he seems to be a rather controversial figure. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Clearly notable. Has been a journalist, an activist who has influenced government policy, has written several books one of which has been turned into a film... Being a crackpot is not a valid criteria for deletion - we have articles on David Icke and Timecube, the crackiest of crackpots.--greenrd (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly notable irrespective of whether you consider him a crackpot. --Michig (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As an author if you make The Sunday Times Best Sellers list, I would determine you immediate meet WP:AUTHOR. WP:GNG widely comes into play regarding controversy and criticisms regarding this person's work. The nomination almost entirely focuses on the nominator's bias and opinions of the subject's work. Wikipedia is not censored, not for original research, and not a soap box to suppress articles not in alignment with your views. In terms of actual policy based arguments, there's reference to WP:BLP1E which is a stretch by any attempt. The article is poorly sourced, needs considerable work, NPOV, and seems to have major gaps for some information. Those are all surmountable problems and well outside of notability issues. Mkdw^talk 21:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.