Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Shirran

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. MBisanz talk 03:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Shirran

[edit]
Martin Shirran (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)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:I'm Tony Ahn (creator who discloses on his user page that he is a PR professional, and I assume this article was created as a paid-for project) with the following rationale "Subject is in my opinion notable. Will leave an entry on the talk page" (see Talk:Martin Shirran). I still, however, disagree that the coverage is sufficient: the linked sources focus on his "therapy", and he is not discussed much; in other words he fails the requirement of having in-depth coverage. Majority of the bio section is unreferenced (no footnotes), and I do not see any reliable sources for his life. The unlinked Times story seems not to exist at all ([1], through I'll AGF it is just misspelled), and I also cannot find the Psychologies article ([2]). The best I can suggest is that mention of his "Gastric Mind Band therapy" could be made by partial merge to some relevant article like Hypnotherapy, perhaps. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article was moved to mainspace by an independent editor who felt the article met community standards. The Times story was a print story, not web. Here is a copy: [3] [4] Same with Psychologies:[5] [6]. And another feature by Hello Magazine: [7] . These are in addition to national television coverage on ABC News and CBS newsmagazine show Inside Edition, as well as two articles in The Daily Mail UK. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate the scans (as puzzled as I am that there is still stuff published that is not digitized). They do however prove my point - they are not about the subject, but about his treatment (which I still doubt would be encyclopedic on its own, but that's another discussion). As for the subject, I still stand by my observation that there is no single reliable, independent, in-depth source about him. Neither do I see how he meets anything else in WP:BIO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:26, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:BASC “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.” An excerpt of the associated footnote reads “Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail.”
You mean WP:BASIC. And I am afraid that IMHO, the coverage you've shown is trivial and falls squarely into the example of "Mary Jones was hired by My University". It's all about 2-3 sentences about him no better then a bio-blurb on his book or website, and then they go into the tabloidy discussion of his quackery, mostly based on interviews with the few gullible and interviable "patients". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of the multiple independent sources can be said to mention the creator of the therapy "trivially," considering the number of times they mention him and the amount of information they detail about him, in aggregate: his nationality, which institution trained him and in what theoretical orientation, where he lives, where and when he established his clinic (which is independent of any specific treatment modality), the publication of his books, and more. All of this combines as per WP:BASIC to demonstrate notability. How can someone be interviewed on two US national TV news shows, be mentioned over and over in two Daily Mail UK, one London Times, and two magazine articles that provide detail on his his research and career, and not meet WP:BASIC? I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is a doctor who has promoted a specific method. However we lack either enough coverage focused on him, as opposed to just the treatment, to pass the GNG. On the other hand, we even more lack anything that would show he has received anything approaching the coverage to pass any guideline for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Under that criteria, you should delete the article on Albert Ellis as well. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's set aside WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - I'll point out this person has at lest one biographical book on him (Daniel N. Wiener (1988). Albert Ellis: Passionate Skeptic. Praeger. ISBN 978-0-275-92751-6.) and I see two more. You could find better examples, but then - check the linked policy. The gap between those two subjects, in any way, is HUGE, and your attempt to draw a parallel suggest to me once again you have some gaps in your understanding of GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why set aside WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? It clearly states it can be used in a valid or invalid way. I was merely pointing out that other articles have biographical information with fewer sources, yet remain notable. And that book you found was written by a buddy of his, which makes it questionable as a source. I'm a subject matter expert in this area myself. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not so sure. All print sources seem to be of the advertorial type. Online sources are based on the "novelty factor", are mostly in yellow media, and are not extensive. I highly doubt this is a widespread and sought after technique which has changed the "medical" field. It's fringe at best. You seem to have not read the other part of my previous statement as well. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ABC News is hard news. The Times is hard news. The Daily Mail is hard news. Hard news includes lifestyle. Psychologies Magazine is not yellow media either. "Widespread" and "sought after" are not conditions of notability. I find the insinuations of advertorials unfair (Shouldn't you Assume Good Faith on the part of publications that have no track record of paid promotion?). Which "part" of your previous statement are you referring to? The part that was not germane to AfD? Take it to the proper forum. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I really find incredulous about this process is nobody's answering me. People are responding without answering. Specifically, nobody's telling me why they think my interpretation of WP:BASIC is incorrect. Someone posts Delete and states "he fails the requirement of having in-depth coverage. Majority of the bio section is unreferenced (no footnotes), and I do not see any reliable sources for his life." So I add plenty of footnotes to the bio section, from reliable sources. Then he says "I still stand by my observation that there is no single reliable, independent, in-depth source about him." But that's not required by WP:BASIC. Then the next two people that post !votes just agree with portions of the above. The reason I'm incredulous is because none of you seem to realize that if you don't educate me, you get to spend a LOT more time in AfDs that might never exist if you'd just take the time to explain why you think my interpretation is off. Why is everyone acting like WP:BASIC doesn't exist? If I can wrap my head around this, my agency will write better articles that end up in AfD less often, thus serving to lighten the AfD workload of editors like yourselves. So how is the criteria for WP:BASIC not met? I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional coverage:

So now we're at 6 national TV news programs in three countries, 9 newspaper articles, and 6 magazine articles. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is answering you because you are not answering us. We pointed out already those sources are bad, and you keep saying "but look, there are sources". Which we explained to you are bad, to which you repeat this and complain we are ignoring you. None of the sources are in-depth on the subject, they are mostly PR/low reliablity sources, and focus not on the subject, but on his tabloid-liked quackery. As I said above, I don't see how we can keep this except a paragraph on his technique at some larger article. Neither he nor his technique seems to pass GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To start out with, I think you ought to speak for yourself and let others do the same. At no point did you say "those sources are bad." You said there was no one source that is in-depth about the subject, they were all about the treatment. I pointed out WP:BASIC which states that an in-depth feature is not required if several features together provide the coverage. No response to that. You also said coverage was insufficient. I improved the coverage. No response to that either. Then I listed thirteen more sources in national broadcast news, national newspapers, and national magazines across the world, which you hadn't seen yet, and when you did, you ignored them. Now you're calling his work "tabloid-like quackery," when 20 sources I've produced are not tabloid. Ignore me if you like, but it just means you'll be seeing me in AfD a lot more. Or you could educate me and I'd write better articles. Your call. I get paid the same at the end of the day either way whether I spend it arguing with you at AfD or telling a potential client why I can't write his article, as it doesn't meet the notability guidelines as they were explained to me. Its your time and other editors time that are wasted, not mine; I'm paid for my time. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Piotrus. The sources are bad, and the "lifestyle" sections of major news outlets like ABC News are not "hard news", and are rife with paid promotion, and Tony surely knows that, as a PR professional himself. There is not a single credible scientific source validating the efficacy of the subject's alleged therapeutic method. I don't think you can "write better articles" on people like Shirran, Tony. I think you should turn down such jobs, as some other paid editors do, and thus do right by both your client and Wikipedia's volunteers. Ijon (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, I do PR in the Philippines, which is my permanent home. I think you should not speculate on what I "surely know." Second, I disagree that major news outlets like ABC News are "rife with paid promotion" unless you mean the commercial breaks. And you misunderstood what I meant by "I'll write better articles." I didn't mean I'll improve the ones i've written. I mean that I'll select better, thus the articles selected are more likely to meet community standards, which makes them better. I'll write better articles. Gets? And regarding "turning down such jobs," as I said above (please read), we only work with about one in six potential clients we're approached by. Like everything, you have judgement call. I made mine. I put up an article a couple weeks ago that Piotrus finds notable, and it doesn't have a third the sources this one does. So I see this one as notable and I don't see how such highly reputed sources can just be explained away as "bad sources" because you don't like the way the articles in them are written. If this was a bad judgement call, then explain to me why WP:BASIC does not apply in this case, because he meets WP:BASIC on its face. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Martin_Shirran&oldid=1075699247"