Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant Goodwin

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. As has been pointed out in this discussion, an unique medical situation is not in and of itself evidence of notability and the concerns about WP:ONEEVENT have not been contested. A redirect may be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Goodwin[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I believe that this article should be merged with the main article Variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease. Had he not contracted the illness it is unlikely that he would have had coverage. This article will certainly be a WP:PERMASTUB and nothing of importance that is said in this article could not be usefully integrated into the main article. The information about him is entirely linked to his disease and entirely negative. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good grief. Why do we have pages for these people? Tragic of course, but not notable as individuals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Necrothesp. Interested editors may also want to check out the current AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Parker (teenager), created by the same editor.— TAnthony^Talk 14:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Good grief, Every other person who died from vCJD (at last count 177) has had a homozygous Methionine-Methionine form of prion gene. Goodwin differs from the norm, and hence is notable per wiki guidelines. Don't you read the articles which you propose to delete? It is shameful that wiki guidelines are grist for Dom's mill, but who am I to judge? ... The comment of Domdeparis about negativity make no sense and should be struck. I'm happy to hear his rebuttal... TAnthony is in high dudgeon because I demoted Sarah Roberts (character) from headline status. -- Magnoffiq (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Magnoffiq (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

I'm sorry you didn't understand my comment I'll try and make myself clearer. The information that you wrote concerning his symptoms is entirely negative and has nothing to do with him but the effects of the disease and carries undue weight it is sensationalism and not encyclopedic. These are the kind of symptoms that all victims of vCJD suffer and simply because his father has chosen to share these details in the press does not mean that we should include it in an article. The inclusion of these details in the different articles you have created is IMHO distasteful and is aimed to shock. Please remember that as per WP:SHOCK Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner. I believe this was not done.

Just because a particular victim is the first to have died with a different form of prion gene does not make him automatically notable by any guideline I believe. I'd be interested to know which one you are referring to. What is important in all the sources is not Goodwin himself but the discovery that people with a different form of prion gene can be affected. This information has been reported and should be included in the main article. Also please stop making ad hominem comments about other editors as these can be seen as personal attacks and will always lessen the weight of any argument you are trying to make. Dom from Paris (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Dom. Goodwin is notable because more than a dozen newspaper articles over 20 years have been published on him. I'm just curious why there have been more than a dozen newspaper articles published on the same subject over more than 20 years. Your belief is irrelevant... I'm not making ad hominems. If I were, you would know it... The list of symptoms was in the newspapers; I simply digest what I read. The symptoms were intended to shock neither by the newspapers (the shock value is in the headline, not buried on page 6) nor by me. That construction is yours alone... Wiki has, literally 100's of articles "created, expanded or edited to some degree of significance" by User:TAnthony about the Dune (franchise). Some might feel this irrelevant and wasteful, but wiki is a big place with room for everyone's inanities. Does that not include real-life people that are notable because more than a dozen newspaper articles over 20 years have been published on them? -- Magnoffiq (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you have not replied to my question which was very simple. You said Goodwin differs from the norm, and hence is notable per wiki guidelines and I asked I'd be interested to know which one you are referring to. You may not understand what wikipedia defines as an ad hominem comment but FYI when you talk about my "mill" you are clearly making an ad hominem comment, when you talk about TAnthony being in "high dudgeon" this is also an ad hominem comment and should be avoided in deletion discussions as per WP:ADHOM. Deletion discussions are about the article and its content only. You have tried to make this one about me and my "mill" and TAnthony's Dune contributions. Please stop at once and stay on topic or if you can't do so please do not reply. --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finally! We are getting somewhere. The wiki guidelines which this article meets are at least as follows:

I'm interested in your contention about wiki definition of ad hominem argumentation. Do you have a link to a reference? There is a difference between mere behavioural observation and fallacious ad hominem argumentation. This is highlighted in the wiki Ad hominem#Non-fallacious_types. NB and for the record, I have never contributed to the Ad hominem wiki. -- Magnoffiq (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm clearly not getting through to you. WP:ADHOM is quite clear though "A deletion discussion is about the article in question itself...the debate is not about the creator or any other editors of the article, nor is it about the AfD nominator or anyone who has commented on the AfD." Keep the comments on track or please do not comment at all. As I have said the coverage is all about the disease and had Goodwin not died of the disease he would not have been mentioned this is a case of WP:BIO1E. I think we have both come in a full circle and we should just let discussion ride to see where it goes. I shall not reply again, unless there is more ad hom stuff and then that will be on your talk page. Cheers. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um yes, I read the article Magnoffiq. Goodwin may be notable enough for a paragraph in the Variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease article, but he simply does not meet the criteria for an individual biographical article. And even if I researched the "more than a dozen newspaper articles over 20 years" written about him, I doubt it would change my opinion. He is only notable for being the first person with a certain gene to die of this disease; this is totally WP:ONEEVENT. I'm also rolling my eyes at your attempt to trivialize our opinions by identifying articles the rest of us worked on that you think are stupid or unimportant, but the argument that other stuff exists doesn't make Goodwin any more notable. And by the way, I had no problem with your Sarah Roberts article name change, as a matter of fact I changed the 50+ links in other articles that now pointed to the wrong article, which you didn't seem to give a sh*t about because you're obsessed with vCJD. It did, however, bring to my attention the fact that you created a handful of unnecessary bio articles about the victims of this disease, so thanks for that.— TAnthony^Talk 17:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless you get a huge amount of detailed medical research coverage being a victim of a disease almost never is enough to make one notable enough to justify a seperate encyclopedic article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, known for WP:ONEEVENT. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on his unique medical history. Bearian (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this info belongs in the article for the disease; this article is actually more about vCJD than Goodwin. And he simply does not meet the criteria for an individual article.— TAnthony^Talk 16:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, but add any pertinent info there, per TAnthony's argument. The subject of the article may have decent coverage based on their medical status, however WP:BLP1E does apply here - from the sources that I've reviewed and been presented, the coverage on Goodwin is limited to his medical history. That he is the first person to suffer from a certain variant of the disease combined with the coverage in sources may be notable enough to be mentioned in the main article, but the criteria for a standalone article hasn't been met here. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:26, 4 August 2019 (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.