Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Tips

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. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Tips[edit]

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

I'm not an agent of the New World Order trying to uphold Food Imperialism but the sources in this article are very poor indeed. NewsWithViews? An Amazon product listing? We don't want to discriminate against people with a fringe point of view, but being the columnist of Whole Foods magazine doesn't entitle one to a stand alone article. We need serious, in depth coverage in reliable WP:FRIND sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC) LuckyLouie (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any significant coverage in reliable sources. I did find this trivial mention in The Hartford Courant, but that's not enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of substantial coverage by independent reliable sources. I suppose his name could be redirected to National Health Federation, where he is already mentioned. --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What in the blue blazes is this garbage -? {{COI|date=July 2014}} So now you're either resorting to outright lies, or possibly you'd be totally out of touch with reality. Either way totally unprofessional my friend! Really below the belt and most unprofessional! {{POV|date=July 2014}} NO surprises thst you'd add this to it as well Dougweller. None at all. My good chap, just when I thought I couldn't be more disappointed you've gone a extra step further to prove me wrong. I have to say I am saddened and I do feel some sympathy for you. (Boss Reality (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
KEEP - Notability is painfully obvious And this is just a mere snap shot at the man .......
~ Whole Foods Magazine - (Monthly Columnist) [1]
~ National Health Federation - (General counselor) [2]
~ National Health Federation - (President) [3]
~ California Law Review - (Managing Editor) [4]
~ NHF delegation (2014) attending the Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA) Forty-Sixth Session in Hong Kong [5]
~ Codex Alimentarius - Global Food Imperialism ISBN 0979567009 - (Publication) At Amazon, At Good Reads, At Global Research, News With Views, The NFH Shop, Share Guide, National Health Federation, Naturodoc. More thank Amazon for sure ?? (Boss Reality (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Please read WP:GNG, WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS generally, Second Quantization (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again, lack of substantial coverage by independent reliable sources. Boss Reality doesn't seem to understand our policies and guidelines. For instance in this latest edit[6] he adds " March 2014 Tips along with Katherine A. Carroll were part of the NHF delegation that travelled to Hong Kong to attend the CCFA's Forty-Sixth Session. The goals for 2014 were to have a reduction of aluminuim and aspartame in foods. Their efforts were fruitful with the issue of aluminuim in food. The delegation helped to persuade the committe to aluminium in some foods and totally in others." The source for this is an article by Carroll. I can find no independent sources even mentioning that he was there, let alone that their efforts had any effect on the decisions -- this is totally self-publicity. As an aside, it also justifies the NPOV tag. It may be that Boss Reality has nothing to do with any of these people or organsations, but so far he has clearly shown himself to be a single purpose account whose edits are all promotional. Dougweller (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Dougweller, totally incorrect my friend. First of all I doubt that Tips would lie or the NHF would lie about him attending the forum. And as far as single purpose accounts go .... Well most of my time so far has been dealing with what I see as some vandalism and what I also believe to be censorship. Sure I'd like to do other stuff and I will do soon. But at the moment I have had to try and save articles as well as look after the day to day running of my own life. Surely my dear friend you'd understand that. BTW: NPOV Tag should not be thrown around like that. Not good my friend and I believe somewhat untoward I must say. Perhaps you should contact the National Health Federation and see what they have to say. Thanks. (Boss Reality (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I have no idea where you got the idea that my problem was the suggestion that Tips attended the event. My problem is having Wikipedia state in its own voice (or in fact even repeat self-published claims) that "heir efforts were fruitful with the issue of aluminuim in food. The delegation helped to persuade the committe to aluminium in some foods and totally in others." That's the sort of thing that justifies an NPOV tag. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on lack of significant independent coverage. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable per lack of reliable and independent secondary sources. I suggest Boss Reality read and familiarize himself with the pertinent areas of our notability requirements (particularly WP:NFRINGE) before creating other articles. Second Quantization (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable with little to no independent coverage. Boss Reality, may I recommend that you read and understand WP:FRINGEBLP, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:GNG, WP:NRV, WP:NACADEMICS, WP:BIO, and WP:OR? Many of your edits to article-space seems to run afoul of one or several of these policies and guidelines. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per non-notable. I understand this is the 3rd time this article has been created. I suggest salting it and closing per snowball. VViking_TalkEdits 01:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to VViking, I have had a look around and I have no Evidence that the article has been deleted 2 times. Where did you read or hear that ? Actually I'm quite interested. Why would you want to salt an article? I'm beginning to think our fellow Wikipedia contributor Boss Reality may have a valid point on the censorship thing(Starman005 (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Seems much more likely that this is just confusion - it's Boss Reality's 3rd article taken to AfD - all because BR doesn't understand or agree with our notability criteria - which also seems to be the case with you and JoeCreation. Dougweller (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to DougWeller, Old friend how are you doing?
Quote: You - Seems much more likely that this is just confusion - it's Boss Reality's 3rd article taken to AfD - all because BR doesn't understand or agree with our notability criteria - which also seems to be the case with you and JoeCreation. Dougweller (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Come now friend. I think Joe Creation has picked up on something that I others should notice here. If what you say about VViking aka Viewmont Viking is true then it would be mighty reckless to salt and delete an article just because this would be the creaters 3rd time creating an article. And a different one too. No I believe that VViking aka Viewmont Viking is being either intentionally misleading or something else. Perhaps this needs to be explored. I mean when someone says as per below,
Quote: VViking aka Viewmont Viking - Delete, per non-notable. I understand this is the 3rd time this article has been created. I suggest salting it and closing per snowball. VVikingTalkEdits 01:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC) and with the revision Revision as of 01:59, 25 July 2014, I would be more likely to believe what my eyes tell me. It's not confusion when someone says "this article". It's illusion and deliberate! And someone could be forgiven or wondering if (Delete - Salt - Snowball close) means that the intentions are an indication of someone may not be on the level. So I now personally believe that if this is true then VViking aka Viewmont Viking may be a bit naughty to try and pull this off. (Boss Reality (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

User:Boss Reality first off if you are going to be commenting on my post and using my name specifically please ping me so I can respond quicker. I just happened to come back to this page to see if it was closed. Normally I wouldn't.

Second please assume good faith, I was mistaken and reread the original posting about the 3rd time. It is exactly like User:Dougweller said. I am sorry for the confusion. This still does not change my belief the article should be deleted as non-notable. VViking_TalkEdits 11:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , It seems quite odd that this article is nominated for deletion. People are missing something here. :) There's certainly enough notable information in multiple directions to satisfy many of the most important criteria. I fail to see how this is disputed when the evidence of notability is right here. I will say that the article needs improvment but that's a minor issue. (Joecreation (talk) 10:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
- Sorry.... which WP:FRIND-quality sources are you referring to? jps (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, no coverage in Reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - And another one that easily gets my vote. Highly Notable, Notable for his contribution to the natural health movement and legal representation. And what about his profile and participation at the codex meetings? Massive profile. Numerous contribution in publications for food and also Law. Too much to be ignored! When reporting on the codex meetings, those challenging or questioning codex procedure are deliberately ignored by much of the mainstream media for certain reasons. Do I have to spell it out here? (Starman005 (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Please read and understand the implications of WP:NFRINGE, WP:GNG, WP:NRV, WP:NACADEMICS, WP:BIO, and WP:RELIABLE. Simply stating that the subject of an article is notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may be notable... and that is in reality all you have so far. WegianWarrior (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete FRINGEBLP that fails to show extensive reliable and independent sources. Another Codex Alimentarius quack. 93.96.203.155 (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2014 (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.