Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Enby

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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Enby[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. Doctor prescribes bad treatments, patients die, license is revoked. An additional problem with this article is that this situation happened over a short period of time over a decade ago (WP:NOTNEWS), and the subject has no RS coverage outside Sweden/Swedish language sources. The four sources in the article appear to be the total extent of RS available. I fail to see the relevance to an English-speaking audience, nor do I see a lasting effect that would take this out of WP:NOTNEWS. MSJapan (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His treatment methods fall under the fringe guidelines, which require lots of coverage to show notability, and we lack coverage of the level that would show that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: can you provide a link to fringe guidelines. This is new to me. ~Kvng (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found [1] but it talks more about articles on fringe theories themselves. There is some mention of fringe theories in criteria 1 of the notability guideline for academics, but not nearly as much as I was thinking there was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just found WP:NFRINGE, a subsection of that page, which suggests that we're looking for extensive coverage. Presumably this is above and beyond significant coverage. ~Kvng (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not to get all conspiratorial, but I believe the article was originally written by Enby himself, or an associate, for PR purposes rather than out of a sense of relevance. Unless relevance can be established there's no reason to keep it. Ylleman (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur, there's no actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 16:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems like someone who appeared on news once and then faded away -almost BIO1E? More importantly, I do not see the significant coverage required of the subject. In fact, the article seems to be coatracked with material for which no reliable sources can be found. I'm also a bit concerned about the BLP violations in the article. If the subject is a criminal (if at all), then they do not see to be a notable criminal. I'm going with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:10, 12 August 2016 (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.