Misplaced Pages

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 06:01, 5 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

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. John254 00:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

William Tebb

William Tebb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non notable medical fringe theorist, top hits are this article (poor sign for notability) and a crank website. His views may be notable; however, he isn't Bigdaddy1981 01:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment there's enough content here to suggest the makings of an article and possible satisfaction of WP:Note criteria. Just because something doesn't yield ghits, isn't to say there aren't valid sources around - the paper references may enlighten further (although I personally am not going to delve into them)Dick G 02:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment they appears to be pamphlets he wrote in the 1890s. Bigdaddy1981 03:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment One is a large book actually, the Leprosy book, that exposes the way smallpox vax spread leprosy around the world. john

• Delete/merge salvageable content - I agree with you RJBigg, but I think the real content in the article relates to the anti-vaccination movement. There are 2-3 sentences in this article that could probably be constructively merged with the larger article on Vaccine controversy. jddphd (talk · contribs) 03:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Widely-published campaigner who clearly achieved significant recognition in his own time. More sources needed, but there should be no problem finding them in newspapers and other historical accounts of the era.
  I am also concerned that the nomination sounds so POV; terms such as "fringe" and "crank" are not relevant to notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment anti-vaccination is a fringe medical theory; that's a statement of fact. The website is a site that has been blacklisted by wikipedia you may judge for yourself if it is crank or not. You will note that I do not seek a deletion based on the accuracy of this man's views; merely his notability. Bigdaddy1981 04:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply: "Fringe medical theorist" is not fact, it's a POV statement. One person's superseded theory or minority view is another's "fringe crank", but in any case the anti-vaccination campaigners were not solely concerned with promoting a medical theory: they were also reacting to some of the casualties of the mass-vaccination programme. These folks were essentially political campaigners, who did eventually succeed in their political objective of securing a conscientious objection to compulsory vaccination ... and victories like that don't come without political notability. Even if people agree with your stance on vaccination, assessing these campaigners solely within a medical model is missing their political significance. (A bit like assessing Ronald Reagan: lousy actor, brilliantly successful politician).

You're right that the www.vaccination.org.uk site has been blacklisted because links to it have been spammed on wikipedia, but the misconduct of some link-spamming editors is not a comment on the value of a website. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I mispoke I think. I meant fringe as marginal, not fringe as (necessarily) wrong. I think its safe to say that anti-vaccination is a marginal view on the matter. The website I meant (which was I believe second or third in the searches was something called "whale dot to" which is also blacklisted. Bigdaddy1981 16:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• keep: Ombudsman 18:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a vote, it will help others to know your rationale. Bigdaddy1981 19:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Another attempt to silence a vaccine critic. Clue is use of term 'crank'. Tebb was THE most notable ley author/researcher to take apart smallpox vaccination, along with Creighton etc. Big daddy has form here with his deletion of Martin Walker, the most notable allopathic critic-writer in the UK today, as can be gleaned by his helping to defend Wakefield . Pure POV. And you can see why they stopped links to whale by reading www.whale.to/a/smallpox_hoax.html john 20:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment in the interest of transparancy, I note that "John" User:Whaleto, is a major contributor to this article. Its usually good form to reveal things like that. Bigdaddy1981 20:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"John" User:Whaleto is also, as you might guess, the webmaster of the banned whale dot to website. Bigdaddy1981 20:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And I thought it was polite to inform the page creator to deletion attempts. Of course, this isn't the first time Also Tebb was one of the main opponents to the compulsory vaccine law, as you can glean from the fact he was the editor of the journal of the National Anti-Vaccination League called the The Vaccination Inquirer, and if smallpox vax was so wonderful, how come they repealed the law? john

If you can add references to the effect that Tebb was a notable opponent of compulsory vaccination, I will withdraw my deletion. At the moment, there is little substance to the article. Bigdaddy1981 21:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

How more notable can you be than to be the editor of the only anti-vaccine periodical? john

• Keep but it needs more sourcing. The Bodily Matters book cited is partially online at Google Books , and internal search finds enough to establish Tebb's notability as head of a leading anti-vaccination group (p40), as well as the premature burial bit (p231). But it doesn't substantiate the bit about him being prosecuted. It's also a bit of a mono-topic biography: this book mentions Tebb, prior to the vaccination thing, was involved in the US slavery abolition movement and as a paid campaigner for vegetarianism.
• Strong keep - I've expanded the article from the ODNB. He was an extremely wide-ranging social reformer. Gordonofcartoon 02:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• Per User:Gordonofcartoon's refs, I move to close this AfD as keep - Tebb does indeed appear noteworthy in a number of different Victorian movements. Bigdaddy1981 02:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
• From a cursory reading this fellow appears to have been a notable member of the late 1800s social reform movement. His opposition to vaccination is of historical interest, but certainly not the reason why he is particularly notable. JFW | T@lk 21:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - the vaccine stuff is marginal as far as he is concerned - he's clearly notable per the good work of Gordonofcartoon Bigdaddy1981 22:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thx. Like many reformers of that era, he seems to have been into every social cause in the book. I hope the rewrite and expansion puts the anti-vaccination into wider context; the old version gave it undue weight in presenting it as his only interest or activity of significance. Gordonofcartoon 22:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Yes, notable for a wide variety of things. But anyway, he's in the ODNB and that has repeatedly been accepted here as sufficient criterion for notability. i think they're at least as careful and professional about this sort of evaluation as we are. If anyone here thinks our standards should be higher, I'd like to hear that argument. Though to be fair to the nom, that references wasnt there when he nominated it. Now that it is, I see he very reasonably and cooperatively wishes to withdraw the nom. DGG (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep based on additions by Gordonofcartoon. The subject may have been a crackpot on some of his views, but he was clearly a notable social reformer of his time. Edward321 01:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY. Skomorokh 15:44, 19 August 2007 (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.