- 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. Tone 10:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Edward Group
AfDs for this article:
- Edward Group ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable detox fad promoter. None of the quality sources discuss him in depth, rather just brief mentions among other detox gurus. Delta13C ( talk) 06:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Was previously deleted. A single purpose account recreated the article a month ago. Delta13C ( talk) 07:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Query – Would it be possible to restore the deleted version to the history so that we can tell whether it qualifies as a speedy deletion under CSD G4?
StillWaitingForConnection (
talk) 17:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I have no idea. That would require an admin, no? Delta13C ( talk) 07:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- The old text is now in the history. This is the version that was previously nominated for deletion. It's different text, so not really a G4 - David Gerard ( talk) 19:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Almost all refs are the article subject being quoted on some claimed health benefit. No evidence of any notability or even any medical sense of his recommendations. Blatantly self promotional Velella Velella Talk 17:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- As requested I've restored the deleted history. The 2015 items are the prior article. I personally won't speedy delete, but another admin may wish to do so, especially if the discussion seems one-sided. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done
- Delete. Despite good faith attempts at improvement I don't feel notability is established. There are more sources now, but not reliable, independent ones. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, preferably speedy under G4. The question in the original AfD was whether notability was established by the claims made in the article, whether those sources which meet
WP:RS gave the subject non-trivial coverage, and whether the article was promotional in nature.
Whether this meets the "sufficiently identical" test under WP:G4 falls into the realm of admin discretion – some sources and phraseology differs, possibly enough that some would be uncomfortable to delete without discussion, but not to an extent that could possibly change the arguments at this AfD relative to the previous one. Which is surely the point of G4. StillWaitingForConnection ( talk) 13:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment – I'll try to pour through the revisions to get a better idea, but the article I just read is yet another example of prose existing to back sources rather than the other way around. Group is a regular guest on The Alex Jones Show, which suggests that his name is a plausible search term. However, that particular article was merge/redir'ed just the other day to Jones's article, a move which completely reeks of "backdoor deletion" (of the 200+ talk shows contained in Category:American talk radio programs and subcats, I would be hard pressed to come up with a half dozen programs which are that terribly notable independent of the host's notability). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Just not notable and still reads "promotional". Kierzek ( talk) 18:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Looking at the previous version's reference collection, it looks like this guy really doesn't pass Wikipedia note as yet - David Gerard ( talk) 19:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- non notable subject. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Tone 10:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Edward Group
AfDs for this article:
- Edward Group ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable detox fad promoter. None of the quality sources discuss him in depth, rather just brief mentions among other detox gurus. Delta13C ( talk) 06:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Was previously deleted. A single purpose account recreated the article a month ago. Delta13C ( talk) 07:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Query – Would it be possible to restore the deleted version to the history so that we can tell whether it qualifies as a speedy deletion under CSD G4?
StillWaitingForConnection (
talk) 17:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I have no idea. That would require an admin, no? Delta13C ( talk) 07:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- The old text is now in the history. This is the version that was previously nominated for deletion. It's different text, so not really a G4 - David Gerard ( talk) 19:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Almost all refs are the article subject being quoted on some claimed health benefit. No evidence of any notability or even any medical sense of his recommendations. Blatantly self promotional Velella Velella Talk 17:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- As requested I've restored the deleted history. The 2015 items are the prior article. I personally won't speedy delete, but another admin may wish to do so, especially if the discussion seems one-sided. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done
- Delete. Despite good faith attempts at improvement I don't feel notability is established. There are more sources now, but not reliable, independent ones. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, preferably speedy under G4. The question in the original AfD was whether notability was established by the claims made in the article, whether those sources which meet
WP:RS gave the subject non-trivial coverage, and whether the article was promotional in nature.
Whether this meets the "sufficiently identical" test under WP:G4 falls into the realm of admin discretion – some sources and phraseology differs, possibly enough that some would be uncomfortable to delete without discussion, but not to an extent that could possibly change the arguments at this AfD relative to the previous one. Which is surely the point of G4. StillWaitingForConnection ( talk) 13:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment – I'll try to pour through the revisions to get a better idea, but the article I just read is yet another example of prose existing to back sources rather than the other way around. Group is a regular guest on The Alex Jones Show, which suggests that his name is a plausible search term. However, that particular article was merge/redir'ed just the other day to Jones's article, a move which completely reeks of "backdoor deletion" (of the 200+ talk shows contained in Category:American talk radio programs and subcats, I would be hard pressed to come up with a half dozen programs which are that terribly notable independent of the host's notability). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Just not notable and still reads "promotional". Kierzek ( talk) 18:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Looking at the previous version's reference collection, it looks like this guy really doesn't pass Wikipedia note as yet - David Gerard ( talk) 19:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete -- non notable subject. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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.