Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:44, 21 July 2007

Edward McSweegan

Edward McSweegan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Notability is not conclusively proven. Writing several books and journal pieces are not enough to satisfy notability guidelines. Also, its subject is asking for deletion. — Shinhan < talk > 15:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom and subject. This is a potential libel and slander problem. Bearian 16:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Every article is a "potential libel and slander problem" (emphasis added). That doesn't mean they should be deleted. Rather, that means that we as editors must keep an eye on our articles and ensure they do not contain libelous statements. --ElKevbo 17:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm in the midst of a major rewrite of this article, per verifiable information from highly reliable sources (CBS News, WaPo). Please give it a chance ... Blueboy96 16:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (pending sourcing from Blueboy96) I find it absurd that the subject would think to call us "vandals" when his first contribution here was to POV-push and delete cited material from reputable sources. All that aside, I don't think the subject is sufficiently notable for inclusion, regardless of their desire to have a bio or here or not. Caknuck 16:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the original version was heavily plagiarized. Blueboy96 17:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per CSD A7 and WP:BLP --Edokter (Talk) 16:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That there was an entire CBS Evening News article solely focused on this individual contradicts your assertion of CSD A7. I have no comment on the alleged BLP issues. --ElKevbo 16:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's fixed ... to my mind, the fact that he was a program officer at the NIH is enough to be notable. Keep--but give a stern warning to Freyfaxi for potentially causing legal problems for Misplaced Pages. Blueboy96 16:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as the newest version cites multiple (well, just two...but that's multiple!) excellent sources asserting and supporting the notability of the subject. I would be amenable to discussing merging this article in to the NIH article but that is a separate discussion and an editorial decision. --ElKevbo 17:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Current version appears adequately sourced, and the news coverage supports notability. Espresso Addict 17:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the subject is notable; besides the references now in the article, the subject keeps injecting himself publicly into significant public health controversies, such as Lyme disease and more recently morgellons, see for example Pathogens & People: Internet helps spread delusion that Morgellons a disease which was published this month. The guy's happy to publicly pronounce on other people and gets bent when people who cite reliable sources write about him. (He did have a justifiable complaint with the original version of the article though.) He pops up all over on Google; while much of it is nasty "echo chamber" stuff written by folks he's annoyed, he's not exactly an anonymous scientist. Studerby 17:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Despite the fact that the article has been substantially cleaned up, McSweegan is still ranting about it not being "approved" by him and that it was "lifted" from certain sources without permission. I'm starting to wonder how much longer we can assume good faith. Blueboy96 18:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 17:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, individual is clearly notable as a search of Google News Archive, Google Books and Google Scholar indicate. He has held a significant government post in his field (more than one, actually) and has been covered in depth for his views. I'd love to make this go away by deleting the article but unless OFFICE comes up with a rationale for that I have to stay with WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 19:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope Office doesn't delete it just because he doesn't want it there. If that were to happen, it would set a very bad precedent for Misplaced Pages. Blueboy96 19:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please delete. Doesn't it matter what I think about being subjected to a Wiki entry for reasons unknown, by persons unknown? How can deleting something intended to defame and harass someone be a bad precdent? Whatever happened to honesty and accuracy? EMS

Please note that the above editor purports to be the subject of this biographical article.

I do not understand your assertion that the article is "intended to defame and harass someone". Can you please expand on that, preferably with examples from the current version of the article? --ElKevbo 21:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates