Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Kenton

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. Daniel (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Kenton

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

No evidence of notability, has been tagged for notability since April 2012. No RS supporting notability. MrBill3 (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there may be some support for notability but none has been presented. It has also come to my attention that an IP editor that has been editing the article has a conflict of interest that has not been disclosed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The IP on my talk page User_talk:Ronhjones#Jeremy_Kenton appears to be a new editor, and may not have full knowledge of our policies (unlike named accounts - IPs don't get welcome pages with the policy links), comparing histories - I don't see anything much of the IPs edits being current - thus the page is more or less the same as it's been all this year. The IP questioned the deletion of a PROD - I explained that I could restore it as a deleted PROD (but it would probably come here) or he could have it as a sub-page of a named account for someone to improve (ideally not himself - he was pointed to WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY). He chose the direct restore - it could have made a page for improvement, if one could get enough refs to support all what has been said on the page. Personally I would be included to drop it into Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. I have fixed the one dead link. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 15:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The WP:COI editor's additions have been fact-based (about where the subject now works) rather than WP:PEACOCKery, so I don't see that as a significant issue - and any issues there would be a matter for normal editing rather than AfD. But as to the matter of notability, the article lacks supporting references (nor am I finding any from multiple searches), and even if everything was supported by references, I don't think there would be sufficient to demonstrate notability, whether professionally, as expert witness, nor as broadcaster. AllyD (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not in the places I would expect for a high ranking doctor (Who's Who, Debrett's). I found one reference in The Guardian from 1983 ('Bodies are in, mind therapies are out. Just swallow the message and live youthfully for nearly ever" The Guardian (1959-2003); Aug 29, 1983;), which quotes him twice. Nothing more. Also, we prefer evidence based medicine for WP:MEDRS not pseudomedicine with added self-promotion. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2013 (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.