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 no consensus. Editors disagree about whether this person's media impact is sufficient for notability.  Sandstein  06:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Blaylock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Notability has not been established from WP:RS per WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Editors are forced to WP:OR and use of primary sources to find even the most basic information about the subject. Although subject has been quoted by several (mostly) fringe internet websites for his iconoclastic views on vaccination, aspartame, MSG etc., no independent, reliable sources have been found about the subject himself. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not that I disagree the sources are not strong, what do you meant by "Editors are forced to WP:OR"?--TParis00ap (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Subject is said to be a neurosurgeon, but for a source, editors had to perform an online search through "Webdoc" or something similar to find any information on the individual. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but you say editors use Webdoc to find it. So is your biggest issue primary sources on webdoc? I'm not trying to catch you in a trap if that's how it seems, I'm just confused by how you said it.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of original research is that performing such a search to find information that hasn't been published is OR. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case, searching Google for sources would be OR. In this case, it looks like some sort of limited-access site. We'd need to know more about it before it's considered "published" or not. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:FRINGE subject that fails all our relevant notability criteria, despite his self-promotion (by which I mean lack of RS, etc). Verbal chat 21:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the level of third-party coverage does not rise to the level of "significant", and gives no indication of any mainstream scientific notice of his WP:FRINGE claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: I disagree with the fringe music of the numerous garage bands that have articles describing them in Wikipedia (in the thousands), but that doesn't give me or anyone else the privilege to declare them damnatio memoriae in this work. Blaylock's views may not be mainstream, but the fact that both he and his works have been quoted in the Fredericksburg Free Lance Star (listed as reference #8 in the article), and also in the Chicago Tribune (reference #4 in the same article) is more that enough to establish him as a serious subject; as such I dispute your notion that none of his article's citations are reliable. Hence, I declare Russell Blaylock a notable subject. HarryZilber (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A Google search on "Russell Blaylock" yielded a respectable 73,100 hits. Compare that to 37,100 Google hits for "Adelle Davis" who also wrote books on health and nutrition. Yes Blaylock is controversial, but the public attention he gets from being controversial is what makes him notable. Greensburger (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a good argument for keep - we don't go on ghits. Verbal chat 12:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the standard per WP:PROF is higher than simply having been quoted in newspapers; I'm unable to see a criterion there that he meets. That leaves the general provisions of WP:N, however, which he appears to fulfill - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I see significant coverage in the Chicago Tribune, CBN News, and other news outlets, none of which are obviously unreliable, so as potentially fringe as this fellow is, he falls within the notability guidelines. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these multiple WP:RS with significant coverage of Russel Blaylock? Verbal chat 12:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're the ones referenced in the article. As I said above; coverage in the Chicago Tribune, CBN News and other news outlets. I'm open to an argument that the coverage isn't significant or the sources aren't reliable but in the absence of one I'm prepared to assume they are. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned a number of times on the talk page of the article, and is checkable by doing the relevant search, the free cites were chosen out the many available ones out there because the majority of others require a payment to see the information.Alf ^melmac 14:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Blaylock has made substantial impact outside academia in his academic capacity - one of the conditions listed at WP:PROF which requires only one of the list be satisfied. Very strong agreement with HarryZilber's comments about editors having issued damnatio memoriae without cause.Alf ^melmac 09:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on radio shows does not satisfy the "substantial impact" clause of that criteria. Verbal chat 12:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion on that, I stand by mine.--Alf ^melmac 14:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable supporter of fringe medicine. Article does not satisfy WP:BLP. Most of the sources are either written by Baylock himself, or are only a passing mention, which does not satisfy WP:RS. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - publications plus press coverage plus ghits adds up to notability here. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GOOGLEHITS does not satisfy WP:N, nor do trivial mentions in press. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ghits do not establish notability on their own. However, they can be one piece of a notability argument - they are, if you like, circumstantial evidence of notability when corroborated by other evidence. And the press coverage is more than "trivial mentions". Gandalf61 (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • G-hits are very low on the list of the notability argument. And if you'd care to present some non-trivial press coverage, we'd like to see it. Of the ones listed (NOT written by the subject himself):
        1. A Game of Hide and Seek is behind a paywall, so that one will have to wait for now;
        2. Want Full Disclosure With That Meal? appears to be down;
        3. Flavor-Enhancing Msg Is Everywhere, But Is It Harmless Or An "Excitotoxin"? is about "excitotoxins," not Dr. Blaylock.
        4. The Hidden Danger in Your Food cites Mr. Blaylock's opinions as an interview about MSG; it's a three-part article on the site about MSG, of which, MD. Blaylock's opinion gets a few paragraphs.
        5. MSG, Cancer, and Your Heart is, again, another article about MSG that happens to quote a few sound bites by Blaylock. Further, both this and "Hidden Danger" are by CBN, not a reliable source of reporting on science matters, so at most these could be used to cite his opinions.
        6. Sugar substitutes aren't always so healthy is a letter to the editor, not even an article, and should be removed even if the article survives.
        7. How sweet it isn't? Natural alternatives to sugar, minus the calories and carcinogens. again gives Dr. Blaylock a passing mention in one paragraph.
      • So, we have one behind a paywall (which I can look into later at home), one down, two articles by CBN that are about MSG (not Dr. Blaylock), a letter to the editor, and a passing mention. Perhaps the one behind a paywall has something, but even then, that's one article about him. That doesn't strike me as notable in the least. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We can see that the CBN articles all have substantive presentations of Blaylock's theories. We don't need peer-reviewed research to establish notability - the credibility of CBN as a source of scientific information would only be relevant if it was used to validate a claim that Blaylock's views were correct, which isn't the case here. Go and pick a fight with someone else - we are done here. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to be rude, and I'm not "pick(ing) a fight." The entire point of AfD is to debate the merits of the article; you need a bit of a thick skin to deal with this! So, let's assume that other folks find CBN to be a valid source of notability. In that case, we have CBN and potentially the article behind the paywall as proof of notability so... two sources, instead of one. Still not very strong evidence that he's notable. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a third nuetral party, can I suggest ya'all just be careful of personal attacks and offer you a "cookie of friendship" and maybe a beer?--TParis00ap (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referring back to the question on the reliability of citations within the Russel Blaylock webpage, the Tampa Bay St. Petersburg Times was readily searchable this afternoon and produced the article: Want full disclosure with that meal?, which discussed Blaylock and his work in two of its paragraphs. That along the Chicago Tribune article: FLAVOR-ENHANCING MSG IS EVERYWHERE, BUT IS IT HARMLESS OR AN "EXCITOTOXIN"?, where the article's summary is readily viewable and includes this portion on Dr. Blaylock: "....The latest questions about MSG risk have been raised by Dr. Russell Blaylock, a neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery at the Medical University of Mississippi, who speculates that glutamates from food can pass into the brain, where they can overstimulate neurons and eventually destroy them. Such substances have been dubbed "excitotoxins."", and the fully viewable article: Sugar substitutes aren't always so healthy in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star which has a paragraph on his work, makes three reliable news sources which have described both him and his work –that's probably more reliable sources than 15% of the articles in the English Wikipedia (I've run random article quality surveys on English Wikipedia articles in the past). Unless WP admins are willing to AfD that quantity of existing articles in Wikipedia in order to raise the minimum benchmark for inclusion of articles in WP, others such as myself may conclude that some people are trying to eliminate the Russell Blaylock article for ideological or similar reasons, not WP:N issues.

Self-disclosure: I have no relationship with Russell Blaylock, any of his supporters or any organizations conducting similar research. I do not necessarily agree with his views since I use Aspartame every day and I find his stance similar to a flight surgeon who once seriously proposed at a lecture that pilots should be barred from drinking coffee, as caffeine has many well-documented negative effects. Since numerous people use MSG, Aspartame and drink coffee worldwide every day without dropping dead or crashing their aircraft, both Blaylock and the flight surgeon have likely overstated the negatives of the drugs they're discussing. However that doesn't mean that articles about them shouldn't be permitted in Wikipedia, only that those disagreeing with their works should be citing reliable criticisms on those issues, i.m.h.o. of course. HarryZilber (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. The Times isn't coming up at work, so that may be some work filter. I'll try that again at home later. The exerpt of the EXCITOTOXIN isn't a reliable source itself, so we can't assume the article is relevant until it's read. Finally, you yourself said the Sugar Substitutes article only has a paragraph about Blaylock; that's the epitome of a trivial mention.

That said, even if we take it for granted that we have three reliable sources, they're all about Blaylock's work on sugars/MSG/"excitotoxins", and not about Dr. Blaylock himself. All this would show is that there's enough RS for the Excitotoxins article, not Dr. Blaylock. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per numerous strong 'keep' reasons posted above and as per weak 'delete' reasons posted above. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 05:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I have no doubt that Blaylock is excellent at promoting himself, but his opinions are fringe, his actual media exposure is being exaggerated; many of the sources that have been cited are small papers or his radio show exposures and the 700 club, he was on these programs mostly as a guru about excitoxins. Despite the flurry of editing this article has seen recently the only things that make him appear notable have been wp:npov or primary sources. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per HandThatFeeds and Vioceofreasons01.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep The following sentence was deleted from the Blaylock article three four times: "He was licensed to practice Neurological Surgery in North Carolina between May 6, 1977 and December 15, 2006.[ref>North Carolina Medical Board [/ref>" and the reliable source was also deleted. This is clear evidence that there is a concerted attempt by some editors with a hostile Conflict of Interest to conceal Dr. Blaylock's 20+ years of experience as a neurosurgeon. Edits that falsely make Blaylock appear to be an inexperienced crackpot are a violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and a libelous attempt to mislead Wiki admins. Greensburger (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been found on the WP:RSN, these kinds of searches are WP:OR - and it in no way helps establish notability. Policy seems to be for delete, while the keep !votes are mostly WP:ILIKEIT and based on his self promotion and google hits. He clearly fails our notability criteria. Verbal chat 08:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User:Verbal - Are we reading the same AfD ? Almost all of the keep !votes I see above are arguing that there are sources that establish notability - I can't see where there is a single WP:ILIKEIT post, let alone "mostly". I am afraid you are misrepresenting the views of other editors here. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of keep votes that make a sop towards notability but don't stand up to any scrutiny. Verbal chat 09:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User:Verbal - You are entitled to your opinion. But just because you disagree with an argument or find it unconvincing does not make it WP:ILIKEIT. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using the North Carolina Medical Board web site is not Original Research and is not a search. It is page lookup of a specific page - you key in his name and you get the specific page that attests to his being licensed. This is no different than referring to a specific page in a book or journal. That a provable fact about Blaylock has been deleted four times proves the extreme bias of those who are vandalizing Blaylock's article. This is a blatant violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Greensburger (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background to this debate: for those unaware, this article was AfD'ed several days after it was debated on the Wikipedia:Fringe theories Noticeboard's article on Russell Blaylock (which will eventually be archived there if the preceding link is nonfunctional). To summarize: several editors, principally Fences&windows, Cs32en and Verbal discussed the Russell Blaylock article and essentially concluded that since he was a proponent of Excitotoxicity and was named in this 2005 Guardian article as someone critical of Monosodium Glutamate, that his BLP article should be declared Fringe Theory. IP editor 86.3.142.2 pointed out over several paragraphs that the 1) a BLP article is not a 'fringe theory' even though it discusses someone who purportedly supports one, and therefore should not be discussed on that noticeboard, and 2) nowhere in the Guardian article does its author say that Blaylock was a purveyor of fringe theories, or even words close to that (cs32en argued otherwise). The Fringe Theory noticeboard article concludes when Verbal states that the Russel Blaylock article had been AfD'ed.

Personal observation: I consider it laudable to support fact-based science; however in this instance I've viewed a concerted effort to eliminate the Russell Blaylock article due to his support of alternative medicine –actions I consider counter to Wikipedia's strict No Censorship and Neutral Point of View policies. HarryZilber (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I raised it at the noticeboard because it was full of unsourced strange sounding claims about his battles with the FDA, so I wanted others to take a look. He definitely is on the medical fringe; he's an Associate Editor of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, which is a right-wing fringe publication. I wasn't planning/expecting for the article to be nominated for deletion, and I don't care either way. Fences&Windows 00:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep He fails wp:prof his theories are not science and are very fringe and his academic work is not academically notable. But he does seem to see a fair amount of third-party media attention for his theories and claims; I would think that it would be more than enough to satisfy the relatively low threshold for notability on wikipedia. If nothing else the large amount of interest in the AFD discussion should suggest he may be notable. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The fact that this is a prominent proponent of theories that are fringe is what makes this a definite keep. Having a biography of the person isn't the same as endorsing his best known claims, and Blaylock seems to have published widely about his minority/fringe views. LotLE×talk 02:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Self-publishing does not make him notable, nor do we have enough other sources to show how he is notable, much less to make a BLP compliant biography. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:prof is irrelevant. Blaylock is not an academic and he is not a scientist. He is an experienced neurosurgeon with mainstream credentials who has used his extensive knowledge of the medical science literature to publicize scientific discoveries made by other people, by scientists who publish in reputable scientific journals. In Blaylock's book Excitotoxins, he cites more than 490 scientific papers. You would not call Larry King "fringe" because he has not become a senator or won olympic gold. King is notable because he interviews hundreds of such people on TV. Likewise Blaylock is notable because he excels at bringing medical science discovers to the attention of the public. Greensburger (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of papers he cites isn't relevant to his notability. Really, based on your argument, the only notable thing is the Excitotoxins, not Dr. Blaylock himself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The scientific papers he cites in his books support the facts that he presents as popularized science, not fringe stuff. The fact that his publications have created controversy and attracted public attention to Blaylock, causing his detractors to libel him and attempt to marginalize him, attests to his notability. Greensburger (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, no. That he cites papers and determining they back his theories would be WP:OR on our part. And "controversy" does not mean "notability." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Blaylock and his sources did the research, not us. If Blaylock were not notable, you would not care and neither would I. The fact that Blaylock's detractors are spending their valuable time to write specious arguments here in an attempt to subject Blaylock to Damnatio memoriae attests to him being notable. Greensburger (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • (sigh) No, that's not how it works on Wikipedia. Please try again once you've read WP:N. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The first three citations say it all - they rebut Blaylock's theses without mentioning him in particular. Writing for NewsMax and JPANDS similarly confer no notability. His books have received some attention (e.g. this review in the Alternative Medicine Review), but I have not found any particular evidence of impact. The media appearances come closer, but they honestly are just a step above self-published. Given that this is a biography of a living person, it is especially crucial that we use solely in depth high quality independent sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:59, 6 October 2009 (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.