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 and redirect to The Man Who Wrote Frankenstein. RL0919 (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Lauritsen[edit]

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

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

This is an article which was first submitted by a banned sockpuppet, and so likely should have been speedied, but since then a lot of work has been done to clean it up. An extensive discussion on WP:FTN has happened about whether this person is notable and, so far, in spite of asking for third-party WP:Independent sources on which to create an article, nothing has emerged. There is a two-page autobiography that Lauritsen published of himself in Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, and there is mention of his existence in various sources that seek to cast judgment on his two WP:FRINGE beliefs, but this means that we have to consider what makes this person notable enough for a self-standing Wikipedia article. WP:GNG doesn't do it because there are not in-depth sources about the person. WP:AUTHOR and WP:FRINGEBLP both to me seem to indicate we would be better off not having an article on the individual. Note that none of the sources currently used in the article provide any biographical information about the person that we would normally want to see in a WP:BLP. jps (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There doesn't seem to be much really written about him, but quite a lot of sources that pick up on his claims, e.g. the Greer piece already cited, and on the Frankenstein claim Wired, ABC (Australia) (which also states that Camille Paglia wrote a favourable review of his book for Salon), The Independent, Huffington Post, the book Frankenstein 200: The Birth, Life, and Resurrection of Mary Shelley's Monster (calling his book "insultingly titled"), The Times, ABC (Spain)", and on his HIV-related claims the book Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge, and The Independent. As in a lot of these sources, he may merit a mention in articles on Frankenstein and HIV/AIDS, but whether a number of largely dismissive mentions in reliable sources makes him of encyclopedic interest is questionable. --Michig (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose that particular book could be covered at Frankenstein authorship question. Alexbrn (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is irrelevant whether mentions of Lauritsen in reliable sources are dismissive or not. We have plenty of articles about people who are discussed in reliable sources in a very negative light indeed - the existence of an article about a person is not some kind of stamp of approval on their views. All commentary on and discussion about a person in reliable sources helps to establish their notability, including negative commentary and discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • But is there any "commentary on and discussion about" the person (as opposed to a book)? That would seem to be the nub here. Alexbrn (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am simply trying to keep debate rational. Michig's comment seems to imply that only approving discussion of a person and their views shows that they are notable. That just isn't the case. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wasn't implying that, either would count towards GNG, but judging him as any sort of expert would need sources to back that up. --Michig (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • As an example, if were to judge him as an academic, which is how at least one of the sources refers to him (though incorrectly I believe), the first criterion of WP:NACADEMICS is "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", for which the nature of any coverage is clearly relevant. Apologies for not making this clearer. --Michig (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' fringe wackos require a lot of deep good sourcing to show notability, which is lacking in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above comment could be considered a violation of WP:BLP. Someone might suggest to John Pack Lambert that he revise it. I think it's quite wrong to suggest that articles about people who hold "fringe" views require a different level of sourcing from any other kind of biographical article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not that WP:FRINGEBLPs require a different level of sourcing -- it's that, in the context of fringe theories, there are often sensationalist sources which go out of their way to make mention of weird ideas and those who cling to them thus inflating the profile of obscure believers in ways that make it difficult to align with WP:NPOV. When people are argued to be notable because of their fringe beliefs, it is important that there be in-depth independent sources that explore the biographies of such individuals. In situations where WP:FRINGEBLP does not come into play, it is not so problematic because it's generally easier to find reliable sourcing for the biography. jps (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Lauritsen is discussed in the book Denying AIDS by Seth Kalichman. See here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentioned, indeed, as a part of an omnibus exploration of people who are AIDS denialists. But this book does not appear to be offering biographical information. Rather it's just an annotated list of those who have been entranced by the AIDS denial arguments many of whom do not (and I would argue should not) have Wikipedia articles. jps (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Man Who Wrote Frankenstein, which appears to be sufficiently notable from the article itself and the coverage I found and detailed above. I'm not yet convinced that any of his other work justifies more than this. --Michig (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect - there doesn't seem to be sufficient material to establish notability. It's almost all fringe or self-published, and almost everything else is incidental mentions. --tronvillain (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep if necessary for WP:IAR reasons. Lauritsen is a major scholar and Wikipedia needs an article about him. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What establishes him as a "major scholar" but somehow doesn't meet notability criteria? --tronvillain (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lauritsen has played an important role in controversies related to both AIDS and Frankenstein authorship issues, as those familiar with his work would know. So yes, I consider him a major scholar. If that doesn't make him notable per Wikipedia's policies about notability, so much the worse for them. Rewrite them if need be. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to The Man Who Wrote Frankenstein, as per the convincing arguments of User:Michig and User:Tronvillain, although a simple Delete would be an appropriate alternative. Based on the available evidence I am unconvinced that the subject is a "major scholar." JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect. Insufficiently notable for a standalone article. Alexbrn (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2019 (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.