Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Verstraeten

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 - Nominator has good reasoning and there seems to be consensus here with the people involved. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Verstraeten[edit]

Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Lack of non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Sources provided generally fail WP:BLP and mention the subject only tangentially or trivially. Any useable material can be merged into articles on vaccine controversy, thimerosal controversy, causes of autism, etc. Article is clearly a WP:COATRACK to present alternative hypotheses on cause of autism, and violates WP:BLP in its current sourcing and state. This in and of itself could be corrected by editing, but there are not sufficient reliable, BLP-appropriate sources to write an encyclopedic article, hence nomination for deletion. MastCell ^Talk 15:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have too much respect for MastCell to voice an outright disagreement, but I don't understand why the problems in this article cannot be fixed without deletion. Even if Verstraeten has promulgated fringe theories, the references suggest that these theories have been published in serious forums, so I think deletion might be a solution looking for a problem. Shalom ^Hello 20:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I appreciate the sentiment, but you're welcome to disagree with me. :) Actually, Verstaeten's research does not support fringe theories, but has leaned toward the mainstream scientific view that there is no proven link between vaccination or thimerosal and autism. However, the article as currently conceived and written is a forum for a number of questionable sources which bash Verstraeten and promote minoritarian beliefs about mercury and autism. Those beliefs are certainly notable and widely reported, but to cover them in such depth in an article about a scientist whose research actually comes to a different conclusion is a WP:COATRACK issue. That said, you're totally correct that these issues can be fixed with editing rather than deletion. But, in order to fix them and write a substantial, encyclopedic, and neutral article about Verstraeten, we'd need some independent reliable secondary sources. I have not found such sources. Verstraeten has a solid publication and scientific record, but I don't see enough notability for an individual article rather than coverage of his findings in the context of larger articles about autism or thimerosal. Basically, I think that if you remove all of the questionable, unreliable, and BLP-violating sources and material, there will not be anything substantial left to write an article - hence the nomination for deletion. But maybe you're right and I should stub it first and see if any better sources come to light. MastCell ^Talk 20:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 20:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up MastCell, thanks for the message. I removed the last two paragraphs, which I understand as the main source of BLP concern because they seem to contradict his current opinion. Other than that, we are left with a question of whether he is notable in and of himself, or whether his research should be incorporated into articles about vaccination. I don't have a strong opinion either way; my weak opinion is to maintain the status quo and keep his article because it is well-written and referenced. Shalom ^Hello 12:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MastCell --Truest blue 17:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Thiomersal controversy, if anything more needs to be there than the existing citation to his paper. It looks like his research is relevant for that article, but that he is only known for that single contribution and as such does not warrant a separate article. If kept, though, the newmediaexplorer web page link alleging scientific misconduct should be replaced by the Washington Times article it quotes, per WP:BLP. —David Eppstein 18:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is not about M. Verstraeten but a placeholder for his view on vaccines. I see no reason to keep this. Pascal.Tesson 02:35, 14 September 2007 (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.