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. Does not appear to meet notability requirements at this time. Nakon 23:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Taub[edit]

Eric Taub (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)

Fails WP:GNG. Partner with Lex Kogan whose article is also up for deletion. One article in the Huffington Post outside of the blogs and industry publications. No real notability that I can obtain from the sources. TTTommy111 (talk) 03:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak enfeebled keep: The article needs pruning shears, but there is also AlterNet. I don't consider that a very reliable source, as AlterNet has junk and pearls, but there seems some infamy mixed with notoriety involved here, so I deplore the promotional aspects of the article, but I think the continued practice of this fringe treatment is getting coverage. The same is not true, though, of the super-duper pioneering Lex Kogan. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hithladaeus: ibogaine is indeed notable; that does not automatically mean its practitioners are. The AlterNet is not about Taub, and contains five sentences actually about him. Not much in the way of depth. VQuakr (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: I got that, but it seemed to me that the doctor was being mentioned/discussed by the other articles as "bad guy still at large by ducking enforcement going overseas." That would paradoxically help him with his core audience, of course, but it seemed like he was crossing over into the monkey gland territory. Since advertising is prohibited, and since the practice depends on online buzz, and since the article contained promotional material, I'll strike my weak keep and move to neutral. I still think he's awfully close to being notable. Hithladaeus (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ibogaine#Research; insufficient coverage for a stand-alone article. VQuakr (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Apologies, I did not realize that there were two discussions going on about this. This article is 100% legit; the reliable third-party sources have plenty to bear on his notability. This discussion has centered around the Alternet source, for which there is a single sentence at the end, that actually is about Deborah Mash's criticisms of Eric Taub. There are two other reliable sources, and the Huffington Post article entirely centers around Taub and his significance in bringing ibogaine use in the Americas. NittyG (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Insufficient evidence of notability. Only one source seems to provide significant coverage of the subject, which is not enough. Rlendog (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think a redirect is necessary because the redirect target doesn't mention Taub, and I don't see a reason it would need to. Rlendog (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on the comment below, a redirect to Ibogaine#History could be appropriate, since Taub is mentioned there, though not in the Reserch section. Rlendog (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm assuming with the relisting I have to vote again and restart the discussion. I see there has been one vote to delete by Rlendog, who said there is only one source. There is not one source in this article, there are three reliable third-party publications that mention Taub's notability, with one entirely centering around him. Also, by the way, the article on ibogaine does mention Taub under #History, which I added along with this article (Taub is at the center of the history of ibogaine). The Huffington Post article is about Taub, and has not been addressed still. And the Alternet article is about the ibogaine movement, and says "Eric Taub is considered, along with Lotsof and Mash, to be one of the three main luminaries of the ibogaine movement..." The article from Huffington Post is entirely about Taub. And the article from Treatment Magazine says "...Lex Kogan, arguably the leading proponent of Ibogaine treatment, along with his partner Eric Taub". (Note: please forget about Lex Kogan, that is a separate discussion; this discussion is about Eric Taub, and while this was the only sentence I could find that explicitly mentions Kogan's notability (that being the grounds for the article on Lex Kogan to be deleted), this sentence does equally note Taub's significance, along with two other reliable sources.) NittyG (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to vote again. The prior comments remain part of the discussion. Rlendog (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Since this is a non-mainstream treatment, it will be hard to find mainstream sources of information. However, so far we have only blogs and mentions of Taub. I see no reason for an article about him. I also suspect that the article on Ibogaine will end up being mainly about controversy, but will be logically the primary point for information. LaMona (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks multiple, indepth, reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and also any depth in sources. Looks like his partner already got deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.