The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The alert that this particular author seems to lack notability has been up since July. I tend to concur with the sentiment, but would like some community input. There seems to be an active community of internet denizens hoping to maintain the guru status of this and Royal Rife, but I do not believe that they are able to drum up enough third-party independent sources (say mainstream media mention) that is required for such articles. Publishing in "Cover Up" true-believing bully-rag is not good enough. I will grant that his book received two unfavorable reviews from the American Cancer Society and The ACAHF, but the relevant reviews are more about Rife than about the book itself or Lynes. Perhaps a few sentences can be maintained in the article about Royal Rife, but having this separate article here certainly seems to violate WP:BIO. ScienceApologist ( talk) 06:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The alert that this particular author seems to lack notability has been up since July. I tend to concur with the sentiment, but would like some community input. There seems to be an active community of internet denizens hoping to maintain the guru status of this and Royal Rife, but I do not believe that they are able to drum up enough third-party independent sources (say mainstream media mention) that is required for such articles. Publishing in "Cover Up" true-believing bully-rag is not good enough. I will grant that his book received two unfavorable reviews from the American Cancer Society and The ACAHF, but the relevant reviews are more about Rife than about the book itself or Lynes. Perhaps a few sentences can be maintained in the article about Royal Rife, but having this separate article here certainly seems to violate WP:BIO. ScienceApologist ( talk) 06:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply