Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Group

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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Group

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

A very weakly sourced, somewhat promotional biographical stub of a living person (WP:BLP). None of the sources we have are sufficiently reliable or sufficiently address this subject to attest to his importance in the fringe world of natropathy.

While we have no policy against articles about fringe topics, including individuals who promote fringe topics we do not have a different standard for fringe biographies than normal biographies. We require that a biographical article should have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. As yet I have been unable to identify a single WP:RS for this subject.

Also, we should be wary of linking to sources which make medical claims possibly in violation of WP:MEDRS. These are not suitable for establishing a subject's notability. Salimfadhley (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No cited sources mention the subject in-depth. He is quoted in a few of them, as he promotes his fringe medical theories. Delta13C (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell he runs a company that markets natropathic rememedies - the appearances and articles he contributes to all seem to be marketing. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, importance not established. It's hard to believe the article is not simple self-promotion, since its creator has made no other edit. Bishonen | talk 16:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, try as I may I cannot find anything more than off-handed mention of this person. Not enough to pass the WP:BIO ringer. WP:BLPs such as this need to have better sourcing. jps (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Uses lots of bad sources. If it stays it needs to be de-FRINGEd. DreamGuy (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2015 (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.