Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 04:15, 21 February 2022

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 keep. DGG makes a convincing case here. Tone 21:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Ralph W. Moss (writer)

Ralph W. Moss (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Not really covered in reliable sources. Quite simply, there's just not enough information to make a sufficiently good, balanced article, and searches for good sources have apparently failed for many years.

Note that the only good, strong sources in the article... are just background sources, not specifically about him, used merely to provide the mainstream view on fringe theories he espouses. Once you ignore those, you end up with an incredibly weakly-sourced article, with no apparent hope of improvement. Source #3 is especially telling: http://www.annieappleseedproject.org/ralmosphdonl.html - this is used in close paraphrase to provide the history of Moss' life, despite coming from a questionable transcript of Moss talking about himself. It's not a suitable source for a WP:BLP, and fails pretty much every point of the guidelines for self-published sources by the article's subject, but it's arguably our main source for the article.

As for source #7, the only reliable source actually about Moss, it's available on Google books and from that, we can see the coverage is limited to a single paragraph.

For a biography of a living person, we need top-notch sources. Without these, we pretty much have to fail it under the general notability guideline, since we simply lack the material to make an article. 86.** IP (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

86.** IP (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete A search of Google News, Scholar and Books have not shown any substantial information with which to build an encyclopedic article from independent sources. Redirect to Amygdalin may be an option as most sources discuss his views on and involvement with Laetrile/amygdalin. Yobol (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Weak delete: I think this is really on the borderline in terms of notability criteria; it could probably be argued either way. But when you have borderline notability in the BLP of a controversial individual, I think we should default to delete, so that's what I'd support here. MastCell  03:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Definite strong Keep as a notable writer. Meets WP:AUTHOR with several notable books His Free radical : Albert Szent-Gyorgyi and the battle over vitamin C has reviews in New York Times LA Times And it was on the New York Times Bestseller List for March 13, 1988. . We've always considered that by itself as notability. And it is is in 364 WorldCat libraries, including all major academic libraries.

His books on cancer have reviews similar or greater holdings: The cancer industry : unraveling the politics has a review in the LA Times -and Publishers Weekly and Oncolink published by the Abrahamson Cancer Center of the University of Penna. -- and there are 464 WorldCat holdings, again including all major university libraries- The Cancer syndrome, his earlier version of The Cancer industry, itself has reviews in the Boston Glove and LA Times -- and 487 World Cat holdings, including the main academic libraries.

The reviews prove notability. Library holdings are not a formal criterion and are not regarded a proving it, but they help show the notability. I can't imagine hundreds of mainstream health care libraries buying these books if he were not a major influence to be contended with. For most works by alternative medicine figures, there may be many public libraries, but only a few universities trying for completeness. Regardless of that, the reviews prove the notability of the author.

In declining the prod, I gave considerable weight to his membership on the Alternative Medicine Program Advisory Council of the National Institutes of Health. The Toronto Star apparently agrees with me, for they found this appointment worth an article . The NIH also in its principal public review on Laetrile lists his work as the only non-academic reference they include. and gives him a profile I am really puzzled how the i.p. nom missed all this -- which is just from Google News Archive, supplemented with Google. Maybe he didn't look--I notice he does not say he made any attempt to check for references. The first commentator above right after him says he did look in G News--but he seems not to have found the many dozens of items, so maybe he didn't check in their Archive also. It's time people stopped judging by appearances. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Analysis by 86.** IP Going through in order:

• Your first reference, http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/06/books/a-cut-lemon-doesn-t-turn-brown.html?pagewanted=3&src=pm spends only one sentence on Moss, and is thus trivial. It's not a book review at all.
• http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/58797649.html?dids=58797649:58797649&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT is better, but - so far as I can see this side of the paywall - has no information on Moss himself, and so is worthless for making a biography of Moss. If you have access, and can show me wrong, please do.
• http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/13/books/best-sellers-march-13-1988.html merely shows that the book was a bestseller; it contains nothing about Moss. Once again, we need sources to make an article on a living person, BLP doesn't allow us to have a badly-sourced article, so if they don't exist, we can't have an article.
• http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/60067646.html?dids=60067646:60067646&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT is, again, more focused on one of his books, so far as one can see through the paywall. While a useful source for discussing Moss' books, it doesn't appear to help us much for writing an article on him.
• http://www.oncolink.org/library/article.cfm?c=1&s=12&id=118 dubious as to whether this is an WP:RS; but, again, it's on the book, and contains next to nothing on Moss himself.
• http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/access/685618541.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT Another paywalled book review, unlikely to contain sufficient information about Moss himself.
• http://www.worldcat.org/title/cancer-industry-unraveling-the-politics/oclc/19520628&referer=brief_results This, of course, has nothing about Moss. It's a library catalogue.
• http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/665807872.html?dids=665807872:665807872&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI Paywalled book review, etc.
• http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/access/685618541.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT Ditto.
• http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/460047391.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT Ditto
• http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/laetrile/HealthProfessional/page3 Does not discuss Moss at all.
• http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/WGBBMK.pdf Primary source. We can't use Moss to discuss himself, particularly the controversy involving the Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre - WP:SELFPUB specifically forbids claims about organisations or other people, and, while an interview isn't literally self-published, the principle still applies.

Conclusion: I do not believe that DGG's references serve to show that an article conforming with the stringent standards of WP:BLP can be constructed for Ralph W. Moss. A BLP has too high of standards to go by inherited notability. His books likely could have encyclopedic articles on them,.

In the end, between WP:BLP (we need high-quality sources), and the WP:GNG (there simply isn't the substantial coverage in secondary sources about Moss himself that we require), we don't seem to have a choice.

I admit this is surprising - one would think his career would make him more notable, but we have almost no information about him. I am happy to be shown wrong, but don't think DGG has as yet. 86.** IP (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per DGG's excellent sources. I do think he has it. Moss has written several very widely reviewed, notable, books. We normally consider that sufficient to make an article about the author. This isn't "inherited notability" in the sense of WP:INHERITED where the subject didn't do anything to become notable, books aren't relatives, they're his professional output. Moss is an author; writing these books are what he does. Writing books that are this widely read and reviewed is a sign of notability in his field. --GRuban (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

But what are we supposed to use to make the article? If there's no sources about him, we can't. 86.** IP (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

We can make a fine stub article that lists the non-controversial stuff, where he was born, went to school, worked, etc., plus a bibliography with a few reviews. That's enough. Whoever tagged the fact that he graduated such and such a school with "self-published source" was being overenthusiastic. With rare exceptions, when someone writes he personally graduated such and such a school, we believe them. That's not the "unduly self serving" material that WP:ABOUTSELF warns us about. --GRuban (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strong keep - nom did not execute WP:BEFORE; DGG had to do it for nom. The author's work is notable, author is notable, sources exist. (I've removed the misleading double blank lines above, which imply some sort of break in discussion.)

The Toronto Star article found by DGG is probative: the man has been publicly notable for a number of years. GNG. Let's go ahead and cite that in the article.

Nom's analysis isseems zealous and incorrect, and seems to assume bad faith. I am sorely tempted to strikethrough its errors: I sincerely hope nom will do so.

1. About ref #7, a paragraph is quite sufficient. It meets the definition of "substantial", and is clearly not trivial.
2. Nom claims the NY Times 1988 book review "A Cut Lemon Doesn't Turn Brown" (single-page) spends only "one sentence" on Moss, but the article bears reading to show that's not true. 86 claims "not a book review at all", when in fact it clearly states "Mr. Moss's book is a detailed and quite readable study of the life of a man" and "he presents a generally sympathetic portrait of a man he clearly admires. He does not, however, gloss over ...". Bluntly, it's a book review.

   The way I read it was that it mentioned the book, then went on to talk about the subject, without mentioning the book again. I did skim, however. 86.** IP (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

3. The NIH bio is not self-published; though it may have been provided by Moss, it is published by the NIH National Library of Medicine. It is therefore not an autobiographical statement, it is a biographical statement. If there were factual problems with that bio, it would either have been pulled or redacted. The NIH NLM PR office would not sanction unverifiable bios. As is the case with all secondary sources, we basically trust them.
4. In fact, most BLPs about authors of notable works are thin on biographical totally independent sources (the reason for so few BLP GAs!). Most secondary sources about living authors consist of spotchecked autobios, and interviews. We trust them. The sources rule. Is the nom suggesting deleting all of the author BLPs, even though their works have attained considerable notability? I would hope not. This author is conclusively notable through their works and offices held, which (now, thx DGG) have RS.
5. About the paywalled articles, per WP:V, verification has to be possible, not guaranteed to be easy or free. This includes university alumni records - all alumni can verify them, unwashed public cannot - but they are still considered verifiable, like it or not, because all it would take for anyone to verify that source is to register for a class, or befriend an alumnus, etc. An editor cannot arbitrarily exclude sources that he cannot or will not personally verify, see WP:SOURCEACCESS (trust me, I have some bitter experience with this).
6. PBS's two productionsThe two documentary productions broadcast by PBS based on his work were in the 80's, and articles about them and press releases will be on paper. Again, WP:SOURCEACCESS. Per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, if there is reasonable certainty about the existence of sources, deletion should not be pursued.
7. About WP:BLP, we require sourcing primarily in order to avoid blatant promo, falsehoods, and defamatory content. We permit wide latitude in primary sourcing, as long as secondary sources are also cited. Of course, extraordinary or controversial claims require stronger sources, but I see no such claims in this article mandating such a zealous pursuit of deletion.
8. It is unseemly for a nom to argue, belittle, and gainsay every single point of every !vote different than the noms, and this should stop.

Auxiliary supportive, but not definitive, source: This validates Moss's claim, of his film documentary Albert Szent-Gyorgyi: A Special Gift - 1984 (production company, Pacific Street films). We'll have to go through offline 1984/85 newspaper archives for reviews of that show and The Cancer War - 1983, which may have won an award. My point is, sources exist, probably offline. The fact that the online independent biographical material is thin is insufficient justification for deletion. --Lexein (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't think Book reviews would be good enough. I see that that's apparently acceptable, now, but please, assume a little good faith here. As for evaluating DGG's sources, that's what one should be doing, surely: I disagreed, yes, but only after considering it. Had I NOT considered them, that would have been far worse. 86.** IP (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The seeming stridency of the analysis and its seeming ABF prompted my stern-ish wish for some strikethroughs. Your courteous reply above frees me to AGF going forward. Analysis is good, but should still be civil. I tend to agree that book authorship and reviews alone would be on the bubble, without best-seller or other notable attached events or RS pub of any bio details. However, we have broader coverage than that, fortunately: films, officialdom, organizations, advocacy, etc., and we don't know any of his book sales ranks. I hope for depth at the library, and some movement of found sources into the text. . --Lexein (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologise. I didn't mean for it to be uncivil; I merely meant to express disagreement, but was balancing 10 pages at the time, so was probably too blunt in my analysis. Honestly, if book reviews are enough, we can probably close this now; we'll be limited in how much we can say, but, I suppose DGG and you are right - we can say a bit, and I guess there's no harm doing the little bit we can. We can always look at it again later. Withdraw? 86.** IP (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Gah - "never give up, never surrender". Text is a harsh medium; things can easily seem to be what they are not. I think a certain amount of grumpiness should be permitted, but I also overreact. I'm fine with this staying open for the usual period, for other voices (I've been wrong before), or withdrawing. --Lexein (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep – There are sources that show that this person is notable. Inter rest (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep There is no way possible his books can be notable, without the writer being notable. The source found by DGG prove he is a notable writer since they talk about his work. Dream Focus 01:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep WP:GNG is fully established with the broad number of books this individual has published, and has coverage across the internet. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - Per notability guidelines for people, section WP:BASIC, multiple sources can be utilized to establish topic notability. Paywalled book reviews are valid despite being paywalled: see WP:PAYWALL. Northamerica1000 11:12, 30 October 2011 (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.