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. There seems to be fairly clear consensus that Marshall is not notable, and it is on that ground that I'm deleting it. Those arguing keep (and, in other cases, those arguing for deletion) need to understand that it is not enough to simply make bald, inflexible, axiomatic statements about notability; you have to be able to support them. User:Palbert is welcome to argue that Marshall is notable because of support from the Venter Institute; if he cannot provide reliable sources stating that this is the case, his argument is invalid. Comments about notability, events or anything else do not lose the requirement for verifiability just because they're made at AfD rather than in the article text.

Having said that, I take great issue with the way this AfD was brought about, and most particularly with Jimbo's nomination statement. As User:Lambanog says, "This biography has been problematic, with the subject deeply concerned about the veracity of it. Because Marshall's theory seems to arouse the passionate ire of some, neutrality and high quality may be too difficult to achieve." is not a deletion rationale, and it seems like one of the core reasons Jimbo wants this out is precisely because keeping it around is getting awkward. I do wonder what his position would be if the person was notable, but the article was similarly problematic. However problematic the article is, that cannot be a factor in what we do with it in terms of inclusion or exclusion. We cannot start working on the principle that if somebody kicks up enough fuss about their article, or somebody else kicks up enough fuss about that article, we will remove it. This is Wikipedia, not MyWikiBiz; we include things regardless of how difficult the content may be. Passionate ire, the subject's opinions and the problematic nature of the article are not concerns. If you feel differently, feel free to change the Five Pillars to exclude Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and replace it with "Wikipedia cares more deeply about those individuals covered by its content than it does about being an encyclopedia". Ironholds (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Marshall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Emerging consensus on the talk page of the article appears to be that Professor Marshall is himself not notable, while the Marshall Protocol may merit a small article. This biography has been problematic, with the subject deeply concerned about the veracity of it. Because Marshall's theory seems to arouse the passionate ire of some, neutrality and high quality may be too difficult to achieve. I believe we are better off without this article, and with - perhaps - an article on the protocol, if it can be shown to be sufficiently notable itself. Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not sure that we should ever give up on an article just because it will be difficult to maintain neutrality, but agree that there is a notability issue with Marshall. Primae facie, one would expect an article that has been around for more than four years to to state why someone is notable - this one doesn't. There are very few mainstream sources and academic citations are, in my opinion, too limited to reach the standard of notability required by WP:ACADEMIC. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I have no strong opinion on the notability one way or the other, but I am concerned that the lack of neutrality on the part of editors with this article is what is instigating this AfD. I just feel that we are going against the proper policies and methods of this, just because it's a contentious BLP. Silverseren^C 22:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• If having an article on the Marshall Protocol instead of the professor himself is going to be used as an excuse to bring the same content outside the remit of WP:BLP, resulting in a reduced ability to forcibly prevent Orangemarlin from adding his original research[1], then I really don't see that as an improvement. As the Marshall Protocol is strongly associated with its eponymous creator, having the content as an actual part of a BLP to ensure that BLP-level policy enforcement can be applied is extremely important. If this article is deleted, the Protocol shouldn't be mentioned on Wikipedia in any context. Chester Markel (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC) Confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user.[reply]
• Comment leaning towards Delete I was going to say that this was probably notable per Criteria 7 of WP:PROF; however, after reading the notes to criteria 7, I clearly see that he falls short. In addition, I was going to cite the example that he is a board member of the Autoimmunity Research Foundation, but notes for criteria 3 clearly shows that he falls short of that as well. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Marshall protocol per WLU. What ever notability this article has is because of the protocol and the protocol itself is not mentioned because of BLP concerns. It would be easier to describe the protocol if it were distanced from its author. Boghog (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am not convinced Trevor Marshall is notable, and I am not convinced the Marshall protocol is notable. There is very little information in reliable sources about either. Maybe both are borderline cases, but certainly not more than that. If Trevor Marshall is borderline notable, then it would be a bad precedent to delete the article merely because a bunch of 'sceptic' editors can't be prevented from filling it with original research and scientific claims sourced to blogs and letters to the editor. I am sure that if this article is deleted, Marshall protocol will be created and we will get the same issues there. The only difference will be that the focus of discussions will shift from WP:BLP to WP:MEDRS. Hans Adler 09:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:MEDRS is actually harder to fulfill, so... .-. Silverseren^C 09:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but it has already been claimed that per WP:PARITY (paragraphs 2 and 3), sources of lower quality can be used for the topic. Of course the claim that this is a fringe topic and therefore falls under PARITY in the first place is far from obvious, and is supported only by sources of the lower quality that are permitted only by PARITY. Unfortunately I can't even argue that this circuitous logic is a misreading of PARITY, as WP:FRINGE in general does not give any useful guidance on how to determine its scope. In the current climate of cleaning up BLP violations it will be easier to get away with the claim that PARITY takes precedence over MEDRS than that PARITY takes precedence over BLP. Hans Adler 10:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per discussions on the talk page, accurately described by Jimbo Wales. If an article can be written on the Marshall Protocol (and I am not sure that there are enough appropriate sources to do so) the present title could be restored as a redirect to that article. Mathsci (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. It seems clear that the subject is not notable outside the context of the Marshall Protocol, and even if that were notable (not clear), notability is not inherited. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't think this subject meets our site's notability criteria, as expressed here and here. In particular, there is scant evidence of coverage by intellectually independent, reliable secondary sources. Incidentally, this article is a good example of why such sources are essential - it's impossible to write a policy-compliant encyclopedia article without them, and in their absence all sorts of silliness leap in to fill the void. MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per MastCell and others. It's good to see that the sockpuppet was banned.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Obviously a major ideological stouch here. GS gives an h index of 8, hardly sufficient for WP:Prof#C1, but subject seems notable for being controversial for his non-standard views on vitamin D. I think the article should be kept provided that it is made clear that his views are not accepted by mainstream biology. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. The article (even including the now-deleted cancer/vitamin fringery) presents no evidence of passing WP:PROF nor any reliable sources that could be used to pass WP:GNG. He has been mentioned in a Washington Post article about vitamin D but only in a trivial way, nothing that can be used to support an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep The reason Trevor Marshall is notable is exactly what you see happening with the article about him. He has put forth new theories about autoimmune disease and inflammatory disease. Many of these theories are quite different from the mainstream. As such, most people become uncomfortable with them and are tempted to denounce him as a quack. But, in reality, that label doesn't apply. To some extent, his hypotheses, even those about vitamin D, are holding up in at least several arenas. They seem to be holding up with the J. Craig Venter Institute who asked his group to author what they considered to be today's best interpretation of autoimmune disease viewed through the lens of metagenomic research. They hold up with hundreds of mainstream physicians around the globe who are choosing to prescribe his therapy over the standard of care for their chronically ill patients. They hold up with scientific groups in numerous countries who are asking him to give speeches that they do not just give to anyone. For example, he was asked to give the keynote speech at a prestigious international gene conference like DNA Day right after a Nobel laureate. Surely, the scientists who ran this conference do see merit in his work. His hypotheses are holding up with journal editors who have invited him to publish in mainstream peer-reviewed journals. Perhaps some of you don't fully appreciate the resistance that people meet in science when putting forth new theories. (See Kuhn.) That Marshall continues to be invited by mainstream sources to speak and publish about his research when those ideas significantly challenge standard thinking is very notable in its own right.

  Furthermore, while the alleged commenter above may be a sock puppet (quite honestly, I don't know who this is), I think he nails it, so I would like to restate what he said above as it is worth reading, whoever said it, "If having an article on the Marshall Protocol instead of the professor himself is going to be used as an excuse to bring the same content outside the remit of WP:BLP, resulting in a reduced ability to forcibly prevent Orangemarlin from adding his original research[2], then I really don't see that as an improvement." Palbert (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • With all due respect, you should probably adjust your rhetoric, since this isn't an infomercial. If the J. Craig Venter Institute has somehow endorsed Marshall, then please cite a reliable source to that effect (personally, I couldn't find anything of the sort when searching jcvi.org, but maybe I used the wrong terms). Sharing a lectern with a Nobel Laureate isn't necessarily a mark of anything at all. About a week ago, I noticed that I was standing at the urinal next to a Nobel Laureate. Does that somehow bestow additional credibility on my words here?

    This smacks of an attempt to make an end run around the need for actual independent reliable sources with a bunch of six-degrees-of-separation claims. If this subject truly met our notability guidelines, then it would be straightforward to demonstrate intellectually independent reactions to his work. They don't seem to exist, just as the truly peer-reviewed articles seem to be pretty scarce. MastCell ^Talk 03:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't know if this is what is referenced above, but if you look here, you'll see Marshall as being a Keynote speaker behind a Nobel Prize in Chemistry laureate. Silverseren^C 03:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Non-notable conference. And Palbert...who cares what you think. I certainly don't think much of your comments. But then again, I'm bored, and I think another sockpuppet investigation is warranted. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • SPI is not for fishing expeditions. And threatening to open an SPI in order to get a user to stop commenting is harassment. Furthermore, you'll have to explain to me how the conference is non-notable. A conference doesn't have to have a Wikipedia article to be important. Silverseren^C 06:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • • What the fuck happened to AGF? So you threaten me? Oh, I'm hurt. I filed an SPI, but it had nothing to do with anyone here, nor was it to do with anyone involved with this. It was on a whole other article. My comment was in reference to the complete dullness and immaturity of the personal attack by Palbert, so I thought I go deal with a sock. Which I did. Thank you very much, I'm here to keep this place pure and virginal. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Settle down, OM. You know, my comment really wasn't that far out there. Is it really fair to say the only way I could have my point of view is if I am a sock puppet? Palbert (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • What the fuck ever. Like I actually give your statements more than a nanosecond of consideration.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Marshall's development of the ETI 3600 & ETI 4600 synth / moog is of interest to electronic music historians. the Adelaide News 1973 newspaper article/clipping on his site here mentions Electronics Today International were interested in his designs. articles on the history of the Fairlight CMI such as this one mention ETI mag owner had been frustrated with the current synths eg the ETI 4600 and then went on to build the Fairlight CMI, which is one of Australia's notable music instrument inventions and was used by many international artists eg Peter Gabriel (see long list on Fairlight page). so perhaps this isn't enough to save Marshall's page, but perhaps this background / engineering work could be added either to the Moog synthesizer / Modular synthesizer pages. (the ETI 4600 is mentioned on the modular synth page) (& I'd have to research more, but it sounds like the model number prefix ETI also refers to the magazine's interest in releasing this synth) Kathodonnell (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think it very unfortunate that a reason given for the deletion is "because Marshall's theory seems to arouse the passionate ire of some, neutrality and high quality may be too difficult to achieve." Deleting this article on such ground then would justify and encourage acts of "passionate ire". I do not believe in rewarding such editing behavior. Lambanog (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that the reason for deletion is actually a failure to meet this site's notability guidelines. Do you think the page meets those guidelines? MastCell ^Talk 17:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not what the majority of the nomination statement seems to be about. Rather it's about the contentious nature of the subject and how it makes it difficult to keep it neutral, even though I don't actually see why it should be so contentious. Ability to assess the subject's notability is compromised by the pushy editing of certain editors that I think goes beyond the pale. The article has been on here for years and a case for it to be kept can be made. Lambanog (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • So then make the case. Respond to the part of the nomination/deletion rationale that you consider valid. You haven't actually addressed the lack of independent, reliable sources; you've just set up a strawman and bashed away at it. I notice that you didn't actually answer my question - do you think the subject meets this site's notability guidelines? MastCell ^Talk 17:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • He has Springer as a publisher and apparently Nature too. His work has been cited multiple times by authors from what appear to be respectable publications. It seems he may be of interest to more than one field. If I recall correctly he was also a president of a publicly listed company. As for your accusing me of setting up a strawman, the current behavior of many of the editors here, and more troubling still the apparent coordination of it, is of concern since it directly interferes with the ability to impartially and consensually assess notability. Do you dispute that? Then I refer you to the nomination statement. Such behavior can damage not just this article but many articles and alienate many editors as well. If those who think this subject is non-notable are confident of it then they can learn to express their concerns better rather than through methods that put off people. You ask does it meet the notability guidelines? Ask me after a group intent on keeping it has worked on it, not one intent on deleting it. Lambanog (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So does this pass the notability requirements of WP:PROF? If so, then why not demonstrate this through the citation of reliable sources? The page has been worked on by many, many people, yet we're still having this discussion because notability hasn't been clearly established. Feel free to integrate the appropriate sources. It's not up to people to demonstrate a source is not notable; the requirement is on the positive claim. Anyone who believes the subject is notable should demonstrate it through the citation of sufficient quantity and quality of reliable sources sufficient to pass the appropriate guidelines (WP:PROF). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there are those who have a habit of asserting non-notability and deleting or dismissing anything that might demonstrate it. He is cited by other researchers and quoted in The Washington Post. Results from Google Scholar. Editors here are free to believe that is enough or not. But anyone here who is predisposed to think the subject non-notable but extensively edits the article applying their bias anyway should refrain from making demands of other editors and proclaiming there aren't any good sources. By the way WP:PROF is not the only criterion that applies, so does WP:CREATIVE. Lambanog (talk) 06:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:GHITS, a dump from even google scholar isn't convincing. The article in the Post was about vitamin D, not Marshall specifically. Do you have any evidence Marshall passes WP:CREATIVE? I wasn't aware he was a performing artist. If so, please integrate it into the page so it clearly passes the notability criteria. If you're talking about the creation of "a significant new concept, theory or technique" (WP:CREATIVE, point 2), then it will probably be the consensus of most here that Marshall's theories are not significant as they lack acceptance and are not positively cited outside the narrow group of people who are already committed to the ideas. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:CREATIVE it applies to scientists as well. The entire point of this process is to determine consensus. Your commentary on what other people probably think is unnecessary and best left said by those other people. Best to concentrate on your own comments and arguments. For example your last statement seems to conflict with your comment below to redirect. Lambanog (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Marshal protcol and cull most of the information on Marshall himself. Much of the issue seems to be people asserting notability without demonstrating it. The coverage in independent sources is minimal. This is very much a borderline case, one that would be improved if more sources could be located. For everyone who wishes Trevor Marshall or Marshall protocol to exist, rather than asserting his work is revolutionary it would be helpful to provide MEDRS citations that state his work is revolutionizing/ized/izes/ionary vitamin D research. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I think Marshall himself is borderline and hard to call. His protocol, however, is not worthy of its own article in my opinion. It is a revolutionary idea that failed to garner much of a response from the scientific community and I think that's indication it's been dismissed. If we keep the main article there should be a section on the protocol, and I think WLU's was well written. N^oformation ^Talk 05:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no response from the scientific community might be because there's a Big Pharma conspiracy that has bribed every scientist to not participate. Or, per Occam's Razor, it's possible that most practicing physicians actually ascribe to "do no harm" and would never use the Marshall Protocol. I think it's been dismissed without prejudice towards Trevor. I agree that WLU nailed it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Change in the medical world is a slow process. As German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer once stated, “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” The Marshall protocol is going through this prosess and only the members know how good it is to be in control of the microbiota when VDR receptors are turned ON ! Dfv1 (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)dfv1 — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Dfv1 (UTC).[reply]

That's pretty close to an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion, specifically WP:LIKE or WP:VALINFO, as well as presenting problems per WP:CRYSTAL (which is also an ATA - WP:ATA#CRYSTAL). Until Marshall or his work is ridiculed, opposed or accepted in a large number of independent, reliable sources, then it does not pass WP:N. Again, notability is not asserted, it is demonstrated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did Schopenhauer address what happens to falsehoods? In my experience, they pass through two stages: they are dismissed, and then they're promoted relentlessly on Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 16:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per MastCell's reasoning. I don't honestly believe, from looking at the evidence presented, that he is independently notable. All I can find in my library's manuscript collection is [3], and I can't find anything on the catalogue - which is strange given that he's based at my uni. Orderinchaos 02:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:PROF Shot info (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per WLU's proposed draft with others inputting. My concern is that via deletion, Wikipedia won't serve as the encyclopedia of record for those considering objective information about the Marshall Protocol; I think it likely that thousands of people are using this protocol worldwide, and many others considering its use. If---as has been mentioned by other editors---there are indeed concerns over treatment side effects (potential vitamin D deficiencies, renal effects, etc), and serious health issues remain open to further assessment, the public should have a neutral (and arguably) scientifically based source of reporting to turn to, i.e. Wikipedia. As it stands, there are currently a myriad of questionable articles, myths and wive's tales out there drafted by people wanting to perpetuate any ideas they see fit. In any case, I'm not sure my logic here is supported by Wiki policy, but I think it an important factor to consider. Ronsword (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is whether it is sufficiently notable as a fringe theory to attract much attention. The sources used to criticize it are uniformly dismissive, but also brief. Unfortunately it's a borderline situation, I'm hoping those who !voted delete, if it becomes or defaults to a keep, will contribute to the discussion regarding redirection. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets to keep, I'm not totally convinced in the necessity of redirection. Marshall is inextricably linked with the protocol and vica versa; while there are already serious issues with Marshall as a notable BLP subject as it is, there seems to be no notabality at all without the protocol. So it seems that having two pages about this particular individual more or less attaches too much weight---ironic considering that the discussion has partly been about narrowing or even deleting the subject. (One suggestion might be a BLP with a very condensed description of Marshall's protocol and its lack of primary, secondary, other sources?) Ronsword (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete This person is not an influential figure. Rather, he is a man who is trying to become an influential figure and having a Wikipedia article about him only helps further spread misinformation by inadvertently lending credibility to him as an influential figure. It aids in the common logical fallacy of "if it is on the interwebs, it must be true and significant!" Let him promote himself on his personal website like the rest of us. He is not notable outside of the Marshall Protocol community. nooneyouknow 16:26, 22 June 2011 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.165.82 (talk)

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.