Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Kendrick

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. Closing early due to the sockfest and disruption. Consensus, based on far more opinions than most AfDs and ignoring the solicited "votes of editors with little or no other history, is abundantly clear. Only two editors with non-trivial history advocate Keep, and the basis of these arguments is poor (example: number of search its is an indication that reliable independent sources may well exist, but none have been provided). In the end, this person would not pass any of the relevant subject-specific notability guidelines, and does not pass GNG, as noted by several experienced !voters. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Kendrick

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Malcolm Kendrick (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)

Malcolm Kendrick is a fringe figure who agues against the lipid hypothesis. He denies that blood cholesterol levels are responsible for heart disease and in opposition to the medical community advocates a high-fat high-cholesterol diet as healthy. Problem is there is a lack of reliable sources that discuss his ideas. His book The Great Cholesterol Con was not reviewed in any science journals. Kendrick is involved with the The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics, I suggest deleting his article and redirecting his name to that. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a WP:BLPFRINGE currently only sourced to primary sources; I find a few articles by him on other sites but nothing about him. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the only mention of the Dr's opinion regarding statins in the main page is the statement "documents what the author perceived as the misguided use of statins in primary care". This appears to be an ad hominem attack "fringe figure" against the Dr due to disagreement with his very well documented premise in his book. The arguments and hypotheses he uses are well-researched and supported by a number of independent clinicians. Attempts to delete his entry amount to scientific censorship and should be resisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abamji (talk • contribs) 21:13, December 3, 2018 (UTC)
    Comment Those are not valid reasons. There is a lack of reliable sources that mention Malcolm Kendrick so that is why his article at Wikipedia should be deleted. But yes he is a fringe figure (only an extreme minority of researchers doubt the lipid hypothesis, mainstream science does not take him seriously (no academic journal reviewed his book etc). See the bottom section on the The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics for criticism. I just went over Kendrick's personal website, he is basically a conspiracy theorist. He thinks a low-carb high-fat diet with massive cholesterol levels is healthy and the medical community and government are trying to supress this fact. You talk about "censorship" so you are probably a fan of his. You edited my comment [1] and wrote "He is a Gallileo of our times, saying what others fear to say". This is a sign of a conspiracy theorist, not science. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article subject's book being "reviewed in any science journals" is certainly not a prerequisite for the article subject possibly being notable by Wikipedia's standards. MPS1992 (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Here is only one of the most recent research papers supporting Dr Kendrick's questioning of the lipid hypothesis" - The purpose of this discussion is not to discuss the lipid hypothesis, it is to discuss Kendrick. The paper you cited does not mention Kendrick. There are no peer-reviewed science papers that mention Kendrick's research in detail. His article should be deleted per lack of reliable sources. Let's see what other users think. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The arguments to delete the book stem from citing a "majority of researchers" supporting a position. Unfortunately, that is not how science should evaluate the position of critics. It is open secret that the positions advocated by professional and scientific groups in favor of the lipid hypothesis are very, very, weak. Even within the last few years the AHA could only cite observational studies and highly confounded experimental interventions in favor of its advocacy of the lipid hypothesis. And the problematic nature of this fact is clear to anyone who has a modicum of training in statistics. For wikipedia to delete this entry means it has sided with arguments that are only based on appeals to authority and not scientific evidence. And no, citing consensus in a field where conclusions are nominally based on experimental evidence is not "scientific". In some disciplines, where experimental evidence is impossible to get that may be unavoidable, and there are clearly difficulties in obtaining experimental data with human subjects but the solution to that problem is not to rush to judgement or to side with those that would.Billwrlhopkins (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC) — Billwrlhopkins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Skeptic from Britain (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reason for proposing Kendrick's deletion appears to be on the content of his books, rather than on his written contribution to the cholesterol debate. But the entry is not about the cholesterol hypothesis it is a biographical entry, and as such it is an accurate and balanced statement of the man’s work. His books are bestsellers (449 reviews on the Great Cholesterol Con on Amazon). These reading figures validate him as being of public interest and therefore his entry is justified simply as a public figure. As for the books’ content, the cholesterol hypothesis is exactly that, a hypothesis. Given this, ANY opinion, short of cardiovascular disease being the work of fairies, is legitimate. Kendrick doesn’t have a specific opinion on what causes CVD, his blogs on the subject make that VERY plain (he is currently at part 52 or some such on ‘the causes of heart disease’ – this does not indicate a man who has a fixed idea of cholesterol’s role in CVD); what he does have an opinion on is that current scientific data does not fully support the cholesterol hypothesis and there is a lot of very contradictory evidence. Most researchers in the field would admit that there is contradictory evidence and the cholesterol hypothesis is far from water-tight, it’s just a best guess - hence the use of the word ‘hypothesis’ in its title. If scientists and writers are going to have their entries deleted simply because they question the current thinking then every researcher in every branch of science, particularly the outspoken or controversial ones, must also, for the sake of uniformity and fairness, have their entries deleted, and Wikipedia should make it clear that it does not contain up-to-date biographical detail of public figures but only the biographical detail of mainstream figures with no controversy surrounding their work. Pirate hamster (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)— Pirate hamster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You have hardly any edits on Wikipedia and your last edit was 17 March 2011. How did you find this deletion discussion? Has Malcolm Kendrick advertised it to his associates? Skeptic from Britain (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What relevance does the number of edits and the date of them have to the topic of this proposed deletion? I take it Malcolm Kendrick's proposed deletion is not for his edit history? Pirate hamster (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It suggests you're a sock or meatpuppet, which you are. EEng 05:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I created a sock-puppet in 2011 so that I could take part in this discussion in 2018? Now, that's what I call forward-planning. Leave the compound.Pirate hamster (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's happened many times. We call them sleepers. EEng 06:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you "call them sleepers" merely reveals a predilection for private buzz words to bolster your biases. A pet name doesn't lend a prejudice more validity just because you all agree to use it.Pirate hamster (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of the term testifies to the existence of the phenomenon, which you questioned. I wish you'd stop trying to match wits, it's quite tiresome. EEng 00:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the 'term' testifies to is the abject need of amateurs to create an illusion of doing meaningful work, even if that means making up their own words. And I wouldn't dream of trying to "match wits" with you. That would be cruel.Pirate hamster (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Skeptic from Britain To answer your question, per his own website: yes. Praxidicae (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - author of several books, and a 5 second google news search show mentions in Guardian and Telegraph [2], and many other news sources. Deletion request seems to be more of a response to Kendrick's stance which is critical to the mainstream, but notability is pretty clear here. ATren (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't been active on Wikipedia since 7 May 2015 yet you turn up here today. The socking and meat-puppetry on here has gotten out of hand. Other new accounts are still leaving comments here Articles_for_deletion/Malcolm_Kendrick talk Skeptic from Britain (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can address my substantive points rather than attacking my lack of activity? ATren (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is some newspaper coverage, but this sets up a false balance, the Guardian article [3] was written by Kendrick himself and the others only mention Kendrick in a single sentence or two. In the Telegraph article[4] the British Heart Foundation disputed a study which Kendrick co-authored and claims was "robust". But none of these articles are specifically about Kendrick. Aseem Malhotra an associate of Kendrick has reliable sources on his article and newspaper coverage. Kendrick lacks reliable sources that discuss his ideas in any detail. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What a load of Bollux! @malcolmken is one of the most knowledgeable physicians out there explaining the truth about Cholesterol & diet heart hypothesis to the general public- deserves a knighthood at least 😡 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.230.253.14 (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Skeptic from Britain is making a great deal of noise in this discussion about sock-puppets, criticising other contributors' edit history and debating the validity of new users while criticising long-time users, like myself, for being around too long! This strikes me as not only irrelevant (and deflective) but inflammatory. As for his demand: “How did you find this deletion discussion? Has Malcolm Kendrick advertised it to his associates?” it should be pointed out that Kendrick is a popular author (this, after all, is what we are allegedly debating!), who has a lively blog where he talks about not only the science of cardiovascular disease, but also about the state of research and free discussion in medicine. Given that this is the essential nature of the author’s work, it is not only likely but a given that he would a) write about this proposed deletion and b) discuss it on his blog. To expect that he wouldn’t, or that this discussion could somehow be kept private for Wikipedia’s regular editors only, is naïve in the extreme – and bizarrely elitist. What’s more, it smacks of the very conspiracy ideology that Skeptic from Britain has accused Kendrick of exhibiting. The increased number of contributors entering into this discussion is not a conspiracy, it is the natural result of this proposed deletion being discussed on a popular site with high viewing figures – in itself, further proof that Kendrick is a pubic figure whose biographical entry should therefore remain.Pirate hamster (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pirate hamster - I never said this discussion should be kept private, but the current keep votes are mostly invalid because they are not from active Wikipedia users, they are the result of an unethical canvassing scheme. Now we all know this is a canvassing issue [5], as users such as yourself have come from Kendrick's blog. There are twelve new accounts in the last 24 hours voting to keep Kendick's article on the deletion talk-page, some of which voted here. This is against Wikipedia policy, see WP:MEAT. I have never ever seen anything like this before on a Wikipedia deletion discussion. This page should be protected IMO and locked for only autoconfirmed users. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Skeptic - it is not "an unethical canvassing scheme" to ask the readers of your blog if they can throw light on who is trying to unwrite you from history. Kendrick does not say "go in your droves and post on Wikipedia" or anything remotely like it. His sole interest in the matter is who you are and his sole 'canvassing' is "Perhaps user Skeptic from Britain would like to reveal himself and provide some information as to why he is so interested in trying to wipe me out? Perhaps one or two of you here could join in the discussion and see what emerges." No encouraging anyone to campaign for his redemption, no inciting riot, just an understandable need to know why you have singled him out for deletion, other than because you disagree with his hypotheses. You can’t be surprised by this as you make it very plain that you do indeed wish to delete his entry because you disagree with his hypotheses. That is quite straightforward censorship, hence the responses you are getting on here. And I have only "come from Kendrick's blog" in the sense that I read about the proposed deletion there. The fact that I have NOT tried to find out who you are, and couldn’t care less who you are, is proof that Kendrick’s alleged “canvassing” is not in play here and has, in fact, been ignored by everyone on here. All these contributors are here because they disagree with censorship, or because they believe strongly in Kendrick’s ideas, or because they support free medical discussion & debate of ideas. No-one is trying to find out who you are. I would also say, with all due respect, that you can't be crying "unethical" while you yourself are trying to remove a perfectly legitimate entry for a well-established and substantiated public figure simply because you disagree with his opinions. I'm afraid that is the very definition of unethical, and I'd like to think Wikipedia has some rules of its own on that one. Perhaps you have “never ever seen anything like this before” because you have never so blatantly tried to censor something before. Lastly, I’d just like to point out that you open your comment by saying “I never said this discussion should be kept private” and finish it by concluding “This page should be protected IMO and locked for only autoconfirmed users.” I think you’ve kind of said it right there. Pirate hamster (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Attention is called to this passage from WP:GAFD:
One exception to the principle of assume good faith concerns the use of sockpuppets. This tactic is commonly employed by vandals and bad-faith contributors who create multiple user accounts in an attempt to bias the decision process. A close variation is to enlist "meatpuppets", people from outside Wikipedia to "run in" (for example, if my article about a web forum is up for deletion and I post a call for other forum members to "help keep our website in Wikipedia"). Signs of these tactics are that a contributor's account was created after discussion began, that a contributor has few edits or that a contributor's other edits have been vandalism. Other Wikipedians will draw attention to such facts and may even recommend deletion simply because apparent sock- or meat-puppets piled in with "do not delete" or other similar comments.
So best you put a sock in it. EEng 09:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't "created multiple accounts", I have one. My account was created 7 years ago, not "after discussion began" and I have no "vandalism" in my edit history. The ONLY criticism in your 'official' definition of sock-puppets that might apply to me is that I have few edits. This is because I am a regular (daily) Wikipedia user, but only an occasional editor. And that is because generally I don't find fault with the entries I read - this is only the second time I have seen an author I've read up for deletion - so unless Wikipedia has a policy stating that only editors are allowed to comment on deletions and that the opinions of frequent users have no place in Wikipedia discussions, nothing you have cited here refers to me, or is relevant to my contributions. I respectfully suggest, therefore, that you "put a sock in it". Pirate hamster (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's your argument - we should delete author's entries if newspapers only talk about what they write? Do you feel if the papers had discussed his shoes, his weight or his sex life that would give him more validity? He's a medical writer, not Kim Kardashian.Pirate hamster (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. No coverage, no article. Period. EEng 09:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pirate hamster, please see Wikipedia's standards for inclusion for biographies. This is a policy-based discussion. Harassing or attempting to intimidate other editors won't affect the outcome of this discussion. Bradv🍁 06:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bradv Where have I "harassed" or "attempted to intimidate other editors"? I have only discussed the subject at hand, or answered repeated accusations of being a sock-puppet. Disagreeing with other editors is not harassing them and if they feel intimidated by my comments then they should think up sounder arguments instead of falling back on repeatedly referring to me as a sock-puppet, even going to so far as to tell me to "put a sock in it", in other words to shut up. Perhaps you do not consider repeated name-calling of sock-puppet to be harassment? Or you see no intimidation in a regular editor telling me to stop posting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirate hamster (talk • contribs) 20:52, December 4, 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - Kendrick is a GP and doesn't have any background in lipidology, yet sells contrarian books about the lipid hypothesis, suggesting a missive multi-decade conspiracy. He uses well known conspiracy theorist tactics, such as cherry-picking, quote mining, misrepresentation of evidence, etc. E.g. He likes to state that, in studies, those with low cholesterol suffer more all cause mortality, but he fails to mention co-morbidity or reverse causation. He even made a ridiculous blog post stating that saturated fat cannot raise LDL cholesterol[1], despite nearly 400 metabolic ward studies proving this [2]. There is no mention of the meta-analysis of these metabolic ward studies in his blog post. Why? Because he likes to confuse, distract and sell books. He is a menace to society, suggesting people should eat an unhealthy diet, high in saturated fat, as well as refusing to take statins when prescribed. Swampf0etus (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2018/07/03/why-saturated-fat-cannot-raise-cholesterol-levels-ldl-levels/
  2. ^ https://www.bmj.com/content/314/7074/112.long
Of course, if the article were kept it would have to discuss the fact that Kendrick's theories are pseudoscientific; I suspect the many meatpuppets don't quite realise that. --bonadea contributions talk 13:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His opinion and the merits or dis-merits of his hypotheses are irreverent. He fails on notability, the article is a stub of a stub, and it's impossible to expand because there is no notable sourcing to be had. That being said this is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen on Wikipedia. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He is a co-signatory along with Sir Richard Thompson, President of the Royal College of Physicians and others, in a letter to the BMJ on statin prescribing. If he was a non-notable or a crank, he would not have been invited to join their august company. BMJ letter MartinFromWoodstock (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
His contributions to the debate are not what's on the table here. His general notability, as defined by longstanding Wikipedia policy, is what's being discussed. So far, no one has been able to show how Dr Kendrick meets GNG on his own merits. As I mentioned in my !vote below, he has been quoted in pieces about the issue, but has not yet - or at least no reference has been provided to the effect - done any research himself or led a research team that has had its findings published in a reliable source. Please keep the discussion on task, which is to say, please keep it on the subject of the good doctor's independent notability. StrikerforceTalk 15:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Edit StrikerforceTalk 16:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Exactly. This whole discussion is completely off the rails. Based on policy this article shouldn't be here. Signing a letter doesn't equal notability on Wikipedia, coverage in notable secondary sources does that. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have not found any references that point to studies conducted by him or researchers under his direction that support the claims to notability espoused by previous commentators. Nearly all references that I have found are pieces that merely quote him talking about other studies. To me, that doesn't meet "significant coverage [that] addresses the topic directly and in detail" (GNG). I respect the subject's right to have an opinion, as a medical professional, but I don't see how he is any different from any of the eighty or so GPs currently at work at the hospital down the street from me. StrikerforceTalk 15:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Strikerforce, what's different from all those other GPs is that Kendrick espouses a view that is completely contrary to mainstream medicine, and our article as it stands does a poor job of exposing that. I haven't decided yet whether we need to fix the article to provide better coverage, or to delete it entirely. I'm having trouble finding enough sources about the subject directly -- mostly just passing mentions and self-published sources, but regardless of how the AfD turns out, this article cannot stay in its current state. Bradv🍁 15:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Strikerforce "I don't see how he is any different from any of the eighty or so GPs currently at work at the hospital down the street from me" is a deeply perplexing statement. How many of said 80 GPs have written 1 book, never mind 3 of them - and well-known and best-selling books at that, not little amateur treatises? Or have run a blog with a high readership, or have been invited to conferences and seminars with other authors and researchers to discuss cholesterol studies and CVD medicine? This demeaning of the man's achievements is patently not true so why say it, other than to make Kendrick seem lesser and thus decrease his notability? If he has no genuine notability then why is it necessary to trivialise what he has done in order to have him deleted? Pirate hamster (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pirate hamster: Alright, I'll expand my commentary, against my better judgement since I am not convinced that there are any participants advocating for the article to be kept that were not sent here by Kendrick's blog post.
You said, "How many of said 80 GPs have written 1 book, never mind 3 of them - and well-known and best-selling books at that, not little amateur treatises? Or have run a blog with a high readership, or have been invited to conferences and seminars with other authors and researchers to discuss cholesterol studies and CVD medicine?"
My response is this - I do not have an answer for that, nor is it really that relevant to the overall question, in my opinion. I used a general phrase to state that I don't believe Kendrick is notable enough for his own Wikipedia article... just as I would say that - more than likely - none of the 80 GPs at the hospital down the street from me would be notable for their own Wikipedia article. You've mentioned Kendrick's books; I would ask you what content in those books is actually related to research conducted by Kendrick himself? You or I could read the results of research done by other individuals and compile them into a book, if we wanted to. Would that be enough to satisfy GNG for us? (No.) So, for me, the simple fact that Kendrick has written "1 book, never mind 3 of them..." is not enough to pass GNG. As to his "blog with high readership", his Alexa statistics aren't really that impressive for a website that you seem to want to use as a basis for passing GNG. Nearly 56% of his website's readership originates in one country (Australia), ranking the site in the 24K range for popularity there. If Kendrick were notable enough to pass GNG, it could be reasonably assumed that his website traffic would be a bit more diverse than it actually is.
However, I will play devil's advocate against my own rationale regarding his website and say that my analysis borders on OR (although, in the interest of full disclosure, website traffic analysis is part of what I do for a living, so I've got a bit of background there). The more important matter for this discussion is, as I've now pointed out multiple times, that he matter at hand is not Dr Kendrick's stance on cholesterol, etc, but rather he himself. Without significant coverage in independent reliable sources, he's not notable. Simply being quoted a bunch of times talking about other people's research doesn't make him notable. Thus, the article fails GNG, which calls for "significant coverage [that] addresses the topic directly and in detail". Therefore, if we are properly applying Wikipedia's longstanding policies, this article should be deleted, barring someone - and the onus is on editors like yourself that are wanting to see the article kept - bringing it up to par with proper referencing. StrikerforceTalk 21:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strikerforce I've just posted a comprehensive final comment on "notability", since the conversation now seems to be going round in circles, but I'll just answer a couple of your points here since I haven't covered them below. Firstly, you question what content in Kendrick's books is related to his own research, I would say all of it. It's all he does, basically. Because you can't nip down the road to the local lab and run off a quick human study (there's funding issues, permissions, ethics problems in human testing), he spends all his time (and from what I can see I mean ALL of it) studying studies. I don't know why you find this an invalid form of research since actual research studies by various institutions, as published on PubMed and the like, do this all the time. You will find any number of studies that simply collate data and study it, or that extrapolate other researchers' work, sometimes decades of it, and see what hangs together. It's an overview of current research and it absolutely has scientific validity. In fact, without it I doubt anything very much would be achieved by way of progress since individual studies seldom turn up anything that dramatic or greatly changed from previous studies. Often it's in looking at the overarching research that answers are revealed. Writers such as Robert Lustig and Gary Taubes have done this and it's a perfectly legitimate area of research and publication. Lastly, "Simply being quoted a bunch of times talking about other people's research doesn't make him notable" I would say that it definitely does IF, and it's an important if, he comes to new conclusions, especially new conclusions that challenge accepted thinking. You might say a lot of things about Kendrick's observations and opinions, but you cannot possibly accuse him of not coming to new conclusions. By your criteria no analytics would have any value and could not turn up notable conclusions. There are whole industries based on analytics and without things like behavioural research studies - basically huge compilations of filled-in questionnaires - we would know precious little about human psychology. Anyway, as I've said in my final comment, I have no objection to all the 'flaws & failings' of Kendrick's POV being discussed in his entry, and I would absolutely like to see it expanded to include all his work, but what I don't want is it simply to be disappeared in the night because one editor on a mission to clean out what he sees as pseudoscience has decided, books unread, that their author needs purging from view.Pirate hamster (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of what I can find is promotional. I do not seem the requisite independent coverage. Natureium (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – after further research, I can't find enough coverage in independent reliable sources to write a balanced article, or even to source the information that's there now. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NAUTHOR. Bradv🍁 16:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On reliable sources,, pubmed lists Malcolm Kendrick's 11 papers (co-author and sole author) in well known peer-reviewed journals, and his 3 books (plus contributions to two other books) are on sale on the major bookseller's websites. These things are very easily checked, and clearly show his research credentials. I cannot reconcile the last few 'delete' statements with the clear information at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=malcolm+kendrick. Please explain. He is clearly nothing like the "eighty or so GPs currently at work at the hospital down the street". — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyBryantMScPhD (talk • contribs) 17:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— AndyBryantMScPhD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. StrikerforceTalk 17:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those are papers written by him and published elsewhere. GNG calls for "significant coverage [that] addresses the topic directly and in detail". The topic is not Dr Kendrick's stance on cholesterol, etc, but rather he himself. Thus, the article fails GNG and makes him no "different from any of the eighty or so GPs currently at work at the hospital down the street from me". StrikerforceTalk 17:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Academics can sometimes be notable based on their academic output, see Wikipedia:Notability (academics), but I'm afraid Kendrick isn't. The eleven entries in PubMed are not eleven peer-reviewed papers (as you say, these things are easily checked, and I'm sure I was not the only person who did check before posting an opinion in this discussion) and those that are have not been highly cited, which is the relevant criterion. (The bar for academic notability is set quite a bit higher than that. Remember that "notability" means something very specific in the context of Wikipedia.) --bonadea contributions talk 17:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We are discussing Kendrick's notability as far as well-established standards of Wikipedia. NOT his medical positions. And it is a very clear delete based on his lack of notability. Sgerbic (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The man is an author of a popular book and blogger. The sheer volume of comments on this page speak to his "notability" -- if he truly wasn't, nobody would be posting here. I have little doubt that arguments in favor of deleting this page are motivated by personal disagreement with his philosophies. It is a dangerous and slippery slope to begin expunging individuals off the record of history for sake of personal disagreement. Nickandre (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— Nickandre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. StrikerforceTalk 19:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First, assume good faith. I am one of those that have called for deletion and I assure you that I have no disagreement with Kendrick's positions. Frankly, I just don't care. I trust my medical care team and will defer to their judgement, should the need arise. The matter at hand is, as I've pointed out above, not Dr Kendrick's stance on cholesterol, etc, but rather he himself. Thus, the article fails GNG, which calls for "significant coverage [that] addresses the topic directly and in detail". StrikerforceTalk 19:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As my final contribution to the discussion, I’d like to point out that there are many comments on here calling for Kendrick’s deletion that are allegedly based on his lack of notability because he is not discussed by established mainstream medical sources, but there is a basic problem with this premise. It is the equivalent of saying the original civil rights movement in the US has no notability because it wasn’t embraced by the newspapers or government of the day, or that the anti-apartheid movement had no notability because it wasn’t recognised by the South African government. The first rule for institutions dealing with any kind of contentious or controversial subject is that it should not be given ‘the oxygen of publicity’. In fact, many of the comments on here are quite openly advocating deletion of Kendrick’s entry purely on the grounds of his opinions, including, ironically, the original recommendation for deletion by Skeptic from Britain; they make no real mention of his notability. If an institution does not approve of an upstart, renegade, or even a simple doubter, what does it do? It closes ranks and ignores the outsider. It’s not conspiracy theory to suggest that Kendrick is not validated by scientific and medical institutions simply because they don’t want to validate him. It’s just a basic fact of how institutions work. Why would they validate him, when he spends all his time questioning their position and poking holes in their current research/ideology? Given, therefore, that this cannot be a level playing field by its very nature, then notability must, surely, be established by other parameters – such as is he well-read? Has he had his books reviewed in national newspapers? Are his opinions sought by other researchers who do not agree with the current ideology? Are his books commonly and readily available, published by mainstream publishing houses, well-known, well-reviewed on Amazon? What are his current Amazon rankings? Do any other authors/writers/bloggers discuss his books or ideas? In other words, is he a notable public figure? Have people heard of him? Is he read and discussed in places where being a ‘conscientious objector’ is acceptable? - basic indicators that he is not some amateur crank in his basement talking to four people on the dark web. He meets all these standards for notability and, given that he is the aforementioned ‘conscientious objector’, then these are the only ways to establish his notability. You cannot judge someone who purposefully sets himself outside the mainstream as lacking in notability because he is outside the mainstream. He is beaten before he starts by that criteria. I don’t want to cite all the hackneyed Galileos of history, but it is nevertheless true that people who question the ‘ideas du jour’ in any field are never welcome inside the cosy circle of respectability, so notability cannot possibly be established within those parameters. Given this, I feel his entry should stay and be edited to include all his work to give a fuller picture of the man. I see no reason why it shouldn’t be edited to fully elucidate the contentious nature of his opinions so that readers are fully aware of just how much of his thought is outside the mainstream. That way a complete picture can be given, and populist notability, plus any shortcomings of notability within current medical orthodoxy, can be established in full view of the reading public. Pirate hamster (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pirate hamster - I understand your frustration. There have been some posts here that are clearly voting because they do not like Kendrick's work. The final decision will be if there currently exists notable secondary sources that will prove that Kendrick can have a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia has rules about notability and we can't bend the rules for one person and not the other. This person must stand out from his peers in some way that makes him different. Just like with any awesome band, author or porn star, they have to be different in such a way as their peers write about them, single them out as being on the cutting edge or crazy as a loon or influentially showing us the way or something. There are thousands of fringe people here on Wikipedia, I'm sure a lot of them you would roll your eyes at for their relative unimportance in the way of the world. Why are people fascinated with Paris Hilton and the Kardasians, they are just people known for being known. How did that happen, I don't know, but it did. The media started writing about them and then they are notable. There are thousands of beautiful, rich and live drama full lifes out there in the world and we will never know them, alas. No one is saying Kendrick can't have a page someday, just today there are not enough quality citations to prove he fits the rules for notability on Wikipedia. Sgerbic (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I appreciate your argument, Sgerbic, and understand what you are saying about not having one rule for one entry and a different rule for another, but nevertheless, unlike for porn stars, singers and the famous-for-being-famous, this isn't a size of fame issue or a quality of work issue but a 'how do you establish notability when those that will give him notability refuse to acknowledge him?' issue. You conclude by saying "there are not enough quality citations to prove he fits the rules for notability", which is exactly the point I am making. You cannot get those until the mainstream accepts him, but if, by the very nature of his work, he sets out to challenge the mainstream then how can his notability be established? What you are really saying is Kendrick can't have an entry until he becomes 'mainstream'. As I'm sure you'll appreciate, this plays directly into the hands of people like Skeptic From Britain, who makes no attempt to disguise that he's a man on a mission cleaning up diet & nutrition advocates that don't agree with him. It's all very well claiming some kind of superior ethos for Wikipedia here but we can all see quite plainly that what drove this deletion was nothing to do with notability and everything to do with 'Get off my forum with your bolshie ideas'. That's not good encyclopaedia policy, that's just old-fashioned censorship. And a crudely corrupt version of it at that.Pirate hamster (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is the equivalent of saying the original civil rights movement in the US has no notability because it wasn’t embraced by the newspapers or government of the day, or that the anti-apartheid movement had no notability because it wasn’t recognised by the South African government. This is a meritless argument, because the question isn't whether or not mainstream science embraces his beliefs, but whether they have been discussed in secondary sources. If you believe that newspapers didn't heavily report on the civil rights movement in the United States, or that there wasn't heavy discussion of apartheid throughout secondary sources, globally, in South Africa, then you are profoundly incorrect. Grandpallama (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


@Grandpallama "Meritless"? Really? And what would those "secondary sources" be, exactly? In order to be taken seriously? Because it's been made plain here, repeatedly and at great length, that the only secondary sources that would have validity are those of established medical and scientific circles, so how is the argument that those validations will never be forthcoming while Kendrick is challenging those very circles "meritless"? And I didn't say that newspapers didn't report on the (original) civil rights movement in the US, I said they didn't validate it. With the exception of a few liberal voices, the general consensus in the US was that civil rights protestors were terrorists and thugs, or vandals and looters, or unamerican, or, or, or. Nor did I say people didn't talk about apartheid "globally" - there was lots of talk about it "globally", what there wasn't was recognition by the South African government. When did they end apartheid? Yes, exactly. If Wikipedia editors insist on mainstream medicine discussing Kendrick's theories as being the only proof of their validity they are showing no understanding of the historical entries on their own site. As I said before, freezing a dissenter out by refusing them the oxygen of publicity is a standard institutional M.O. After all, isn't that what Skeptic From Britain is trying to do right here - removing Kendrick and hiding him in the invisible "fringe" where he belongs? Pirate hamster (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP sides with the mainstream, it's by intent and by design, see for example here and here. It's part of our structure, what we are for. But the internet is vast, so there are plenty of other places to write. What can make an article accepted here, is sources (WP:RS) as described at for example WP:NACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, meritless. Really. Kendrick doesn't need to be validated by anyone--just talked about by those circles, even if only in that they're rejecting him. And he's not, which means he's not even notable enough to warrant mention. Hence your comparison to events which were discussed in all sorts of secondary sources was, and is, meritless. Grandpallama (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete non notable person campaigning to keep his article. Delete and SALT Legacypac (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And presumably Dr. K won't object because he says salt is good for you. (Reading the linked material, I'm moved to ask how it can be possible for someone to become a medical doctor in the UK without even understanding the difference between elemental sodium and ionic sodium.) EEng 03:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Why the same way they do in Merkia Eeng, by going to uni. Of course, we don't have a back door into real medicine via Osteopathy. Why anybody would actually see a DO I have no idea. You are correct though, there are some dodgy docs around the UK. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 03:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean Merika? Jeesh, get it together will you? EEng 05:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable, general or specific. Policies and guidelines concerning BLP's are clear: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.". This would not be dependent on individual editor likes, dislikes or "crusades" but sourcing. "Crusades" aside, the opening statement does include "Problem is there is a lack of reliable sources..." and that has become apparent. If or when there is enough sourcing I would agree that having "fringe" topics is not bad but that would also include bio-content to make the article more than just a Pseudo-biography. Otr500 (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We surely need to distinguish between "is he notable as a person?" and "are all of his statements correct?". There is loose "global community", concerned with reversing the epidemics of ill-health that are statistically well-established, for whom Dr Kendrick is well-known by his books and other writing and presentations. (Disclaimer: I am a lay-person in that "community", and I have attended one of his presentations, seen many more in various on-line forums, and read papers he has authored or co-authored in academic publications. Google Scholar will reveal a few of them). Another person in that "community" is Dr Aseem Malhotra who has a page here, and who co-authored with Dr Kendrick a paper that was published in the BMJ. Dr Kendrick publishes both primary sources and secondary sources. The question of whether his statements are correct is separate. Someone can be notable yet sometimes be incorrect. He has been exploring the causes of CVD for a very long time, using vast numbers of citations, yet he has not claimed to have solved the question. He is certainly not a quack trying to make fast money from that topic! One fact that should be obvious is that the hypotheses and guidelines that he is challenging have failed to result in global health even after decades. Therefore, challenges to the status-quo, and debate, are necessary, however unpopular they are to people in favour of the scientific status-quo. Dr Kendrick is a notable person. Barry Pearson 13:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The entry marked for deletion is a factual, accurate and short entry on a qualified medical doctor, still registered and practising in the British health service who has published (and been involved in publishing) several peer reviewed papers and a best-selling book "The Great Cholesterol Con". The request for deletion was not supported by any facts or reasons to doubt its veracity, accuracy or value. I argue for keeping it on the basis that it is factual, only describes the person and their activity and like other well-published authors gives a little background. Moreover, he is NOT a fringe doctor but one of a significant, growing movement that questions the mass and increasingly widespread prescription and usage of statins in healthy - as well as unhealthy - patients. Billions are spent each year on prescription of statins to the well who have never had a cardiovascular event on the weakest of evidence for any benefit and no proven mechanism or mode of action on CVD. Scientific hypotheses and medical treatment should always be subject to challenge and discussion - especially when vested interests promote the "mainstream" view to protect their products and markets which generate billions in sales and profits. Individual scientists, patients, pressure groups and others must be free to express logical, factual, rationally based doubts and questions. Dr Kendrick (other THINCS members, Dr Aseem Malhotra and others through peer-reviewed papers including some in the British Medical Journal) have analysed and reviewed the original trials, results and data (rather than the simple summaries that are often biased) and found them lacking in proof of efficacy and value. Without such challenges, the general public is at risk of repeats of such scandals as Thalidomide, Primodos and NHS Trust cover ups. Wikipedia should not delete this simple, factual biographical entry because of a request from someone who's very nickname and profile suggests a clear prejudice against those questioning the accepted wisdom - even though that wisdom is widely under attack and doubt, costs health services billions and shows little improvement in overall mortality and misleads the public and medical professionals. More below for those interested in some background on statins and cholesterol. FACT: Contrary to what the OP states, the lipid hypothesis (increased fat intake = raised "cholesterol" = increased heart disease rates) has NEVER been proven and is based on fraudulent science. FACT: Ancel Keys (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys) an American physiologist cherry picked blood serum cholesterol levels for six and then seven countries against their incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) - but he had data on twenty or twenty one countries and ignored those which did not fit his personal belief that high blood cholesterol was a causative factor in CVD. Since then this belief has been widely adopted, rarely challenged and led to multi-billions in profits a year for the makers of "cholesterol" reducing drugs such as statins. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Countries_Study. Statins - more correctly called HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin) - interfere with an important biological pathway (the mevalonate pathway) and aim to reduce the amount of cholesterol circulating in the blood. Yet cholesterol is a vital molecule for life and key to building new cells as it is a critical part of the membranes of cells - and is involved in proper functioning of cellular membranes including transport and communication across the membrane and hence between cells. Despite aimed at lowering total cholesterol originally, some now target the s-called "bad" cholesterol, but despite their effectiveness at doing so, overall mortality is NOTimproved - as several studies have shown. Any effect on total incidence of CVD is very weak and a growing number of doctors and researchers, despite overwhelming financially-induced resistance (through "grants" to researchers, doctors, charities and suppression of data - e.g., at the Oxford " Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration" where hundreds of millions of pounds were covertly provided to the collaboration by pharma companies!). Increasing evidence shows a substantial minority of patients suffer diverse, disparate range of often subtle but real side-effects which emerge slowly - far too late to be reported in clinical trials and therefore identified poorly through the post-market reporting mechanisms. Side-effects of statins include weakness, muscle aches, muscle degradation (rhabdomyolysis), neurological effects (including global and transient amnesia)which is hardly surprising given the impaired cholesterol synthesis. Overall the positive effects of statins may not be due to cholesterol lowering at all, but due to a side-effect that reduces inflammation or increased NO production.
For those who doubt it, my real identity is easily verifiable from my Wiki profile and is current and has been static for decades. I made contributions to this entry in 2009 after reading the Great Cholesterol Con and conducting extensive research including writing to and challenging members of THINCS and other groups. I have no affiliation with Dr Kendrick, THINCS or other interested parties including heart disease charities, researchers and pharmaceutical companies other than correspondence.Boddisatva 14:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RPainter (talk • contribs) — RPainter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I’m afraid putting "FACT" in front of a lie doesn’t make it the truth. Low carbers get this wrong all the time. Ancel Keys published a paper in 1953 entitled “Atherosclerosis: a problem in newer public health”, which plotted the fat (total fat, not saturated fat and not blood serum cholesterol levels) consumption of six countries against rates of heart disease.
"...but he had data on twenty or twenty one countries..."
Although you don’t say so directly here, this is talking about the paper Fat in the diet and mortality from heart disease; a methodologic note, by Yerushalmy and Hilleboe, published in 1957. This paper plots 22 countries data and shows a diminished correlation with total fat and heart disease. Low carbers like to cite this paper as evidence that Ancel Keys cherry picked his data. But Keys stated the reasons for his data choices: countries had to have used similar data collection methods and have comparable mortality data collection methods. The data needed to be reliable and comparable. There’s no point comparing data of varying quality or you’ll just get a load of noise. Many countries that Yerushalmy and Hilleboe used had diets that were greatly affected by the war. They also included countries like Mexico, which hadn’t even established a formal death certificate system.
Although low carbers love to laud Yerushalmy and Hilleboe as heroes to their cause, they always fail to mention what else they found in their data. Carbohydrate, sugar, plant fats and plant proteins all had negative associations with heart disease. What factor showed the strongest correlation? Animal protein. Hmm, I wonder why they never mention this?
In order to discover what factors of the diet really do contribute to heart disease, Ancel Keys went on to perform a huge, landmark cross-cultural prospective cohort study named The Seven Countries Study. This study was the first of its kind and followed sixteen cohorts spread over seven countries, USA, Finland, The Netherlands, Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia and Japan. It wasn’t just carried out by Keys, there were 17 other principal investigators. The study started in 1958 (which is probably why the authors here used that year), but it didn’t publish its first results until 1970. The participants were followed for 50 years! It’s still generating studies from the data now.
The Seven Countries Study was designed to look at cross-cultural comparisons so that strong contrasts could be seen and generate meaningful data. The whole point of the study was try an understand what components of the diet related to heart disease. It’s ridiculous to state that these seven countries were cherry picked, as it was unknown at the time what was the most likely cause of heart disease. That was the point of the study! Why bother with it if you already know the answer. So what did the study find? That saturated fat (not total fat, like in the six country paper) correlated best in all cohorts (sugar did not correlate, unlike what other lying low carbers tell you). Remember: this wasn’t just analysing junk data, it was following people for decades while examining what they ate. And if these countries were chosen specifically because their population’s saturated fat correlated best with heart disease, then how did they know to choose these countries? The study hadn’t been carried out yet so how could they have known?
"Since then this belief has been widely adopted, rarely challenged and led to multi-billions in profits a year for the makers of "cholesterol" reducing drugs such as statins."
This statement is ridiculous, as it ignores how science works. It’s impossible for one person to trick the whole of scientific community for decades. Scientists pick up on others work and try to repeat it. If their work is unrepeatable, their hypothesis is probably wrong and forgotten about (you know, like John Yudkin's unrepeatable work). Keys' work was repeated and validated by many other scientists across the world. Saying he hoodwinked the entire world is just crazy talk. As to your Statin conspiracy, statins didn’t become available until 1984. Keys work was mostly about diet, not drugs. Again, you’re talking nonsense.
You’ve obviously learned all this nonsense from the likes of Kendrick, another reason why his page should be deleted. Swampf0etus (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am writing to protest at this blatant attempt at censorship. I am a 69 year old English woman, who read 'The Great Cholesterol Con' about 2 years ago when deciding whether it was safe to go on a low carbohydrate high fat diet in order to lose weight - (my BMI was well over 50). I have since lost over 4 stone and my general health is much improved as a result. I know I have still a lot of weight to lose. Dr Kendrick is an experienced, working GP. He does not, I believe, carry out any research himself, but studies and reviews other peoples research work in order to develop his own knowledge, to help him treat his patients and to inform the general public. His writing shows him to be a kind, humane man, with a sense of humour which can be irritating at times. His entry in Wikipedia is short and to the point and tells the casual reader who comes across his name elsewhere, who he is and what he does. The reader who wants to find out more can then pursue this should he wish. That is what an encyclopedia does: it should act as a starting point and should be as inclusive as possible. Minority viewpoints should definitely be included. If they are closer to the truth, they may be the majority viewpoints of the future.Shirley49 (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC) — Shirley49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I'm sure he's a nice guy, but he isn't notable as we understand it, and we ought to delete this article because of that. Do you have any policy based reasons to keep the article? Do you have any history on Wikipedia at all, I haven't looked, because your !vote here will be ignored if you have none. It might be worthwhile pointing out to Kendrick that meatpuppetry is specifically accounted for in our procedures, and reliable sources always win out. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reader who wants to find out more can then pursue this should he wish. How is the reader supposed to do that when the article has no secondary sources? --bonadea contributions talk 19:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To reply to those who question my credentials. The only time in the past I have edited a Wikipedia page, was when a link to my own web-site about a totally different subject was constantly deleted by one person for no good reason. I won this dispute and the link was permanently reinstated and still exists. I have protested about the deletion of Dr Kendrick's page for the personal reasons given in my earlier post, because I consider it censorship by someone who considers he has the right to prevent ordinary people reading it. Dr Kendrick's may be a minority viewpoint, but intellectual progress depends on minority views having a platform where their merits or otherwise may be disputed. I do care about Dr Kendrick's work because right or wrong, he thinks about things. He hazards hypotheses and collects evidence from a wide range of sources for and against them. He does not pretend to know it all. About his sources, if one reads his books, one can trace his sources if one wishes too, though these are not formally indexed as is usual in books for the general reader. The notability test seems to me about preserving an academic cartel or paradoxically, about promoting the lowest common denominator of popularity. I think this test should be abolished for biographical entries, provided these are short and factual, with a word limit if necessary. If one comes across an unfamiliar name in one's general reading, (and as an elderly person this is more and more common), it is a boon to be able to simply type the name into Wikipedia and get a reasonably informative answer.Shirley49 (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC) — Shirley49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Guess what? Voting twice is really unfair. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 21:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
About his sources, if one reads his books, one can trace his sources if one wishes too, though these are not formally indexed as is usual in books for the general reader. That has nothing to do with the sourcing required for a Wikipedia article. His books are primary sources. Wikipedia requires secondary sources and is not interested in what a person says about himself - and the sources in his books are not biographical sources about the person anyway (as others have already pointed out, the article is about the person, not his theories). Please take a moment to read the policy on verifiability and on what is required for biographies. The standards regarding sourcing for biographies about living people are stricter than for most other types of articles. --bonadea contributions talk 21:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources, as you describe, should be unnecessary unless the subject (of the biographical page entry)'s existence has been seriously challenged by a reader. My interest is in keeping Wikipedia as a usable reference source for most web users. A subject of a biographical page is notable, by such a definition, each time a visitor to Wikipedia types in the subject's name, which the visitor almost certainly got from somewhere else i.e. from a secondary source. The great benefit of a comprehensive compendium of knowledge of all kinds, from the very trivial to the most profound, is its inclusiveness. A serendipitous wander wherever my interest takes me is another of the great pleasures of the site. These things are what I pay for when I contribute to Wikipedia's various appeals and they will be lost if too many gatekeepers try to keep material off it. Editors should concentrate on keeping pages as accurate as possible, on distinguishing clearly between orthodox and heterodox viewpoints, and on keeping the tone of the page polite, not on deleting serious entries about real people.Shirley49 (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC) — Shirley49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
We'd all be very happy if you (a) stopped making donations to Wikipedia and (b) instead, actually read why it is we require secondary sources -- see WP:Notability#Why_we_have_these_requirements -- before commenting further. It's ridiculous how you people jump in with these long posts based on good ol' common-sense ignorance, with not a hint of realization that people who have been doing this a long time might have actual reasons for doing things the way they do them. Sort of like people who don't understand science, come to think of it. EEng 22:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are now talking at cross-purposes. My point is that the way some Wikipedia editors now work is destroying the web-site for the general reader. The rules for posts have become so legalistic that they are almost impenetrable. The basic rule should be simple. If someone posts something which can be factually disputed, the person who wishes to do this should do so and the matter can then be debated online. If an agreed consensus can be reached, that should stand. If not, the view, which is judged to be the mainstream or majority view, should stand, but at the base of the page should be a link to a separate page where the minority view or views can find expression. This is a common procedure elsewhere, like in the civil courts, where dissenting judgements are routine. If this were to occur, Wikipedia could then be freed of the charge of censorship of unpopular views or of ideas which challenge the rich and influential. Secondary sources can look impressive, but how much is: "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours"? I feel the main problem with science today is, that with a few notable exceptions, the mainstream scientist lacks the ability to interest and educate the lay-person. If Wikipedia has no wish for the small amounts of money I sometimes send it, I can spend it on something else.Shirley49 (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We've always been talking at cross purposes. You completely misunderstand how Wikipedia works and why it works that way. We have an article on The_International_Network_of_Cholesterol_Skeptics, even though they're an organization of snake-oil salesmen, because they're an organization of snake-oil salesmen who've received substantial coverage. We don't (or, to be clear, in a few days won't) have one on Kendrick, not because he's an individual snake-oil salesman, but because he's an individual snake-oil salesman who's not received substantial coverage. For now he's just another hanger-on to the pseudoscience bandwagon. EEng 02:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Kendrick is becoming increasingly widely known in the UK and the English-speaking world. I now have clear evidence of your motives in shutting down his Wikipedia page. He must now getting more widely known in the USA. The evidence he has collected while researching his books could do real harm to the Pharmaceutical Industry over there as well as over here and you don't like it. Read his blog and you might learn something. Calling him a snake-oil salesman is clearly libel under English law, but I doubt if such a mild-mannered man would ever bother to sue (unless perhaps you're so rich you wouldn't notice.) For myself, I shall just regard it as the sort of malicious insult that Wikipedia is supposed to discourage.Shirley49 (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You really should be aware of Wikipedia's policies against legal threats and consider redacting part of your statement. StrikerforceTalk 15:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I stated a fact. I was careful not to make any kind of threat.Shirley49 (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not libel if he actually is a snake-oil salesman i.e. a promoter of pseudoscience, which he is. As for your idea that I might give a fuck about the (capital P) Pharmaceutical (capital I) Industry, please take your conspiracy-kook thinking to a blog somewhere. I won't be responding anymore because my time budget for enlightening the benighted has been exhausted, but for the entertainment of the rest of us feel free to blather on about the secret forces that control the world. EEng 05:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A snake oil salesman is someone who hawks phony remedies for money. Have you any proof that Dr Kendrick has ever done such a thing? You should retract all such insulting comments now.Shirley49 (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Shirley49: Wikipedia is not for advertising, advocacy, or promotion. If this article was just about promoting or disparaging his ideas, it would be speedily-deleted, and we would not be having this discussion. Instead, this article is being considered on notability grounds, in that there are simply not enough sources available to write an article about this subject. So far, this discussion has generated about 90,000 characters of text, but yet not one person has found a single reliable source to add to the article. Bradv🍁 04:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts also. 117.20.68.188 (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources, as you describe, should be unnecessary Please take a moment to read the information linked in the post you responded to. Such sources are not unnecessary, they are required. If you believe Wikipedia's policies are misguided you can discuss that here and attempt to change them, but a deletion discussion is not the place for that. On this page, we simply have to apply the policies as they are now. --bonadea contributions talk 07:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328 "The participation of sockpuppets and meatpuppets in this debate is as glaringly obvious as their failure to put forward arguments based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines" As glaringly obvious as Skeptic From Britain's reasons for wishing to delete, which were zero to do with notability and as "crude [an] effort" as you could wish for: 'I don't agree with this man's ideas, he's a crank, get rid of him' . The handy "notability" issue became the number one cause only when it became apparent the 'fringe loony' argument wasn't going to wash. And why do you feel the necessity to say that all "sockpuppets and meatpuppets", i.e. users of Wikipedia, as opposed to editors, are going to be ignored? If it's a done deal and the mighty eye of Wikipedia has seen through these users and found them wanting, why do you feel the need to underline that for them? I admit I don't understand quite why user opinions don't count for anything, nor do I understand why users are automatically "sockpuppets and meatpuppets" - a derogatory and dismissive term if ever I heard one. I've suffered from sockpuppet invasions several times in my online life and the one thing that marked them was that they came along merely for entertainment, to make trouble through name-calling, private jokes and juvenile taunts & jibes - none of which I've seen here except, notably, from one or two long-standing editors, who have sworn at other users and made frequent insulting remarks, without even a hint of removal (just as one example: "As for your idea that I might give a fuck about the... Pharmaceutical Industry, please take your conspiracy-kook thinking to a blog somewhere"). All the alleged "sockpuppets" I've seen on here have offered heartfelt arguments, explained their reasons, given well-thought out opinions, links, information; in short, attempted to clarify why they feel Kendrick's entry should stay. Strangely polite and erudite sockpuppets indeed...Pirate hamster (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You said The handy "notability" issue became the number one cause only when it became apparent the 'fringe loony' argument wasn't going to wash. I would like to point you to the original nominating statement which says, in part, ...Problem is there is a lack of reliable sources that discuss his ideas..., which is the very essence of general notability. The issue was the individual's notability all along. StrikerforceTalk 21:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I would point out that few, if any, of the editors that you've mentioned that are on the "keep" side of the discussion have put forth reasons that are actually backed by existing Wikipedia policies. Many of them are simply arguing that they personally believe in what the good doctor is saying, so his biographical article here should be kept. That's not how this works. Please stop attacking those of us who are bringing policy reasons to the discussion and try to do the same for your side of the discussion. These discussions are not simple counts of !votes, but rather evaluations of policy backing presented by those !votes. StrikerforceTalk 21:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For your reference and to cut off any accusations of "editing" the nominating statement, here's the diff showing the original statement, which supports my comment above about Kendrick's individual notability being the issue from the start. StrikerforceTalk 21:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pirate hamster: I've suffered from sockpuppet invasions several times in my online life – could you explain this please? Before this AfD, you hadn't edited Wikipedia in 7 years, and sockpuppet is a uniquely Wikipedia term for people who abuse multiple accounts. Bradv🍁 21:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cullen. Should better sources appear in the future, the article can be recreated. If the subject turns out to be a Semmelweis or a Wegener, we'll note it when it happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above and some added quackery. Praxidicae (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is now obvious that the notability issue is a scam used by certain editors to attempt to restrict lay knowledge of unorthodox writers. Knowledge is a human right and each human being has a right to access it as freely as possible. Now higher education has become so expensive in the UK, more and more people are locked out by fear of debt and will rely more and more on the internet for access to any post-school education at all. All Malcolm Kendrick's page does, is allow someone who has heard his name from another source, to look him up and find out a little more about him, and gives the link to his web-site. I first read his name browsing on Amazon, I checked briefly on Wikipedia and then linked to his blog. Some of his writing convinces me, some of it does not. I hope I always read everything critically. But deleting his biographical web-page is tantamount to censorship of the most disreputable kind, worse it may serve to prolong the current epidemic of obesity and Type 2 diabetes which is now a world-wide scourge. For myself, I wish I had read a book like his twenty years ago.Shirley49 (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...the notability issue is a scam...? It is a policy that has existed from Wikipedia's first day. Neither you nor anyone else have given evidence that shows Kendrick meeting the general notability guideline. Again, I'll ask for you and those of a like mind on this matter to stop attacking with points easily proven to be inaccurate and provide the required evidence. StrikerforceTalk 22:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is plain that the General Notability Guideline serves as a scam in the hands of certain editors to enable them to delete the biographical pages about the holders of heterodox viewpoints. This is censorship designed to restrict debate on what may be serious subjects deserving public interest. Dr Kendrick's work is ignored by the medical academic mainstream because they do not want to engage with his arguments. Therefore his published work is only rarely reviewed or cited. They just want him to go away. Wikipedia should not be aiding and abetting this by deleting his biographical page. Wikipedia would serve its own interests best by hosting his views, but failing that, it should make his views more widely accessible by keeping his page, with the list of his publications and the link to his blog.Shirley49 (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2018 (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.
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Malcolm_Kendrick