Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward McSweegan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward McSweegan[edit]

Edward McSweegan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Notability is not conclusively proven. Writing several books and journal pieces are not enough to satisfy notability guidelines. Also, its subject is asking for deletion. — Shinhan < talk > 15:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every article is a "potential libel and slander [sic] problem" (emphasis added). That doesn't mean they should be deleted. Rather, that means that we as editors must keep an eye on our articles and ensure they do not contain libelous statements. --ElKevbo 17:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Libel and slander is the name of the article and the collection of torts. I would change my vote to weak delete, based on significant improvement to the article, but also comments (below) allegedly by the subject. Bearian 23:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I would think that if the original version were oversighted, the libel issue would be eliminated. Blueboy96 00:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the subject edited the "bad" version in question himself and made no effort to remove negative material, instead choosing to employ point-by-point rebuttal to each point he disagreed with, very messy by WP standards. This is in versions now removed by oversight. Studerby 20:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm in the midst of a major rewrite of this article, per verifiable information from highly reliable sources (CBS News, WaPo). Please give it a chance ... Blueboy96 16:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (pending sourcing from Blueboy96) I find it absurd that the subject would think to call us "vandals" when his first contribution here was to POV-push and delete cited material from reputable sources. All that aside, I don't think the subject is sufficiently notable for inclusion, regardless of their desire to have a bio or here or not. Caknuck 16:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the original version was heavily plagiarized. Blueboy96 17:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to Emcsweegan's edits to Lyme disease from last year. Regardless of the user's prior activity, Blueboy96's version satisfies WP:N and WP:V, so my !vote is now Keep Caknuck 01:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That there was an entire CBS Evening News article solely focused on this individual contradicts your assertion of CSD A7. I have no comment on the alleged BLP issues. --ElKevbo 16:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fixed ... to my mind, the fact that he was a program officer at the NIH is enough to be notable. Keep--but give a stern warning to Freyfaxi for potentially causing legal problems for Wikipedia. Blueboy96 16:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the newest version cites multiple (well, just two...but that's multiple!) excellent sources asserting and supporting the notability of the subject. I would be amenable to discussing merging this article in to the NIH article but that is a separate discussion and an editorial decision. --ElKevbo 17:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Current version appears adequately sourced, and the news coverage supports notability. Espresso Addict 17:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the subject is notable; besides the references now in the article, the subject keeps injecting himself publicly into significant public health controversies, such as Lyme disease and more recently morgellons, see for example Pathogens & People: Internet helps spread delusion that Morgellons a disease which was published this month. The guy's happy to publicly pronounce on other people and gets bent when people who cite reliable sources write about him. (He did have a justifiable complaint with the original version of the article though.) He pops up all over on Google; while much of it is nasty "echo chamber" stuff written by folks he's annoyed, he's not exactly an anonymous scientist. Studerby 17:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Despite the fact that the article has been substantially cleaned up, McSweegan is still ranting about it not being "approved" by him and that it was "lifted" from certain sources without permission. I'm starting to wonder how much longer we can assume good faith. Blueboy96 18:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, individual is clearly notable as a search of Google News Archive, Google Books and Google Scholar indicate. He has held a significant government post in his field (more than one, actually) and has been covered in depth for his views. I'd love to make this go away by deleting the article but unless OFFICE comes up with a rationale for that I have to stay with WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 19:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope Office doesn't delete it just because he doesn't want it there. If that were to happen, it would set a very bad precedent for Wikipedia. Blueboy96 19:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please delete. Doesn't it matter what I think about being subjected to a Wiki entry for reasons unknown, by persons unknown? How can deleting something intended to defame and harass someone be a bad precdent? Whatever happened to honesty and accuracy? EMS
Please note that the above editor purports to be the subject of this biographical article.
I do not understand your assertion that the article is "intended to defame and harass someone". Can you please expand on that, preferably with examples from the current version of the article? --ElKevbo 21:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. McSweegan, it seems that we've gotten off on the wrong foot here. By no means is the site here to defame and harass people. In fact, we have several core policies in place (most importantly regarding the biographies of living people and maintaining a neutral point of view) to prevent those very problems. If there are inaccuracies in an article, by all means bring them forward for discussion. We value accuracy very highly, and are working constantly to ensure that our articles are more accurate and thorough. Caknuck 22:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Policy says: When closing AfDs about living persons whose notability is ambiguous, the closing admin should take into account whether the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted. What we're doing here is arguing about whether or not Dr. McSweegan is sufficiently notable to justify an article. If Tom Delay asked for his article to be deleted, it wouldn't be. If someone created an article about me, it should be speedily deleted; I'm simply not notable, even though a Google search will turn up quite a bit of trivia about me. Dr McSweegan is somewhere in the middle, and that's what interested parties are debating here. In a few days, an administrator will come along and decide what happens next.Studerby 23:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In a few days." Is that the policy: to leave questionable or libelous material on your site long enough for it to be seen by thousands of Wiki users, then replicated by Google, Reference, Answer, etc. so it can be stored and retrieved by anyone from any number of other sites forever? Very reasonable, very responsible of you. I'm going on vacation for a few days; when I get back we'll settle this in public, not behind Wiki's barred doors. Emcsweegan 00:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about it and thought about it, and requested oversight of the relevant versions. Did this before discovering this comment by Dr. McSweegan. Blueboy96 01:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Weak keep per Dhartung.--JForget 22:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Espresso Addict and Dhartung. —Travistalk 23:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think what has Dr. McSweegan so upset is that the original version of the article was the definition of an attack page. It was also heavily plagiarized. I'm starting to think that the best solution here is to oversight all versions prior to ThuranX's edit of today. Blueboy96 23:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is an excellent suggestion should this article be kept. --ElKevbo 00:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are a some stories from 2003 about how he says he was being "paid to do nothing". The news stories were simply reporting this interesting claim because it suggested some sort of corruption. There do not appear to be any more independent sources since that time. This biography serves to document someone's briefly famous dispute with their employer. Wikipedia is not a news archive, notability is weak, and the subject wants it deleted. shotwell 23:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems Dr. McSweegan's issue is that the original version is still in the history (per his statement here that it was "intended to defame and harass me"). Oversighting it would take care of the problem, in my view. Blueboy96 00:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And it's been done. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 01:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in the present form, and watch. DGG (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I was involved in stubbing the article from its previous form to avoid a lot of the issues EMS had. I want to acknowledge that the current version is a much better assembled article, and those responsible should be wikipedia's stub patrol. However, even now, the article basically says "Here's a guy who didn't like his job, his bosses moved him, and hey, even though he didn't like it, he's good at it. Oh, he also thinks crackpots are crackpots, wrote a couple papers in his field, and a couple of pretty unknown sci fi novels." I really haven't seen any major arguments for notability. Should EMS ramp up his activism against moregollums or whatever it's called, and become a national speaker against the diagnosis, or do the same for Chronic Lyme, or any other disease, and become known for being not the loudest mouth, but the best mind against it, that would be notable. Being one among many saying it's a load of hooey does not make him notable to me. Couple that with his desire to NOT be on here, as a dubiously notable person, and I really have to support deletion. ThuranX 03:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that McSweegan's main objection was that the original version was still in the article's history. I personally think the oversighting removes the issue from play--hopefully Dr. McSweegan agrees. Blueboy96 12:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean Up This article has some NPOV issues, but if Dr. McSweegan wishes for 'his side of the story' to be represented, his best course of action is to create more sources (interviews) so they may be used in the article.Archon of Atlantis 09:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but purge history - He seems notable, and assuming the newest version is up to snuff and satisfies the subject, I propose that the past history of the article be purged. Talk page also if deemed necessary. That would leave it still available to admins, if needed, but not the casual user. - Crockspot 16:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The past history of the article has been oversighted ... that was done yesterday. It's only visible to admins with oversight access--but not to the casual user. Blueboy96 16:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're not quite right here. Not even admins with oversight access can see oversight-deleted articles. We can view the log of what was deleted in this fashion, but not see the content. Only developers with SQL access can do that; there is no route to this content in-Wiki. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems notable enough for inclusion in this project. --Tom 17:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - McSweegan does seem to be a player in a controversey significant enough to have its own separate article (Lyme disease controversy), though not significant enough to be mentioned in the article about the controversey. Given the polarization of his situation, which does seem to be noteworthy, it is unlikely that there are any truly disinterested parties who could write an informed article in a NPOV using only the sort of sources acceptable for citation in WIkipedia. However, if such article could be written, it would be worth having. How close is the current article to meeting such a standard? Hard to tell. --Pleasantville 18:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Where did the subject request deletion? If he did, delete, but if not, keep as there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it. Giggy UCP 01:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
revision from this very page has User:Emcsweegan saying just that. — Shinhan < talk > 05:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is nothing that is too defamatory or critical about the subject. Most criticism is against McSweegan's employer. Pats Sox Princess 02:49, 26 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edward_McSweegan&oldid=1140188152"