Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Pearce

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 of the debate was keep. Ichiro 23:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Pearce

Non-notable; he may have been notable 150 years ago, if slightly, according to the article. CDN99 14:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:Bio Compu ter Jo e 14:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not a vanity and it may even help someone. Skyscrap27 14:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. PJM 15:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Not really notable, but *shrug* B.ellis 16:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, debatable whether he was notable even in his time, let alone today. Suggest that a good look be taken at all articles created by Whaleto (talk · contribs) to see if they are attempts to contribute to the encyclopedia or attempts to pack it with any and all historical figures whose views coincide with his agenda. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- After carefully reading his agenda, I think this article deserves NPOV. Skyscrap27 18:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if he was notable 150 years ago, he's notable now, and he has entered the historic record. Kappa 18:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, somewhat notable and also published [1] Jcuk 20:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't indicate how widely those publications were distributed though. I have more "publications" available to the public than Pearce does, but I don't merit an article. --CDN99 14:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First notable medical anti-vaccinator. john 22:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Note: John, a.k.a. Whaleto, is the article's author.[reply]
- How does that square with what the article claims, which is that he was "one of the first to unite with Mr. John Gibbs in the scientific opposition to vaccination"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gibbs wasn't a medical man, he rounded up some of the 'science', so I believe. john 22:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - "So you believe?" Articles can't be based on what you believe John. --CDN99 14:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks important based strictly on the article. -- JJay 23:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also very impressive references/published works. Article needs to be expanded, I believe. -- JJay 21:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't even begin to approach notability, then or now. Soltak | Talk 18:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. this is fascinating. the history of opposition to anti-vaccination, an issue which is still alive today. Kingturtle 09:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As evident from e.g. the Google test (WP:BIO), Pearce is seen as important, and therefore notable, by the current anti-vaccination movement and, although in a negative sense, by his contemporary and posthumous opponents. Pearce's work is directly linked with a fork or schism in medical history where those departing from the mainstream have had a notable and, so far, increasing impact (positive or negative depending on one's viewpoint) both societally and medically. AvB ÷ talk 10:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Noteworthy. Ombudsman 17:35, 12 January 2006 (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.