Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lex Kogan

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. Mr.Z-man 20:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lex Kogan[edit]

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

This is a WP:SOAPBOX and WP:COATRACK, purporting to be about Kogan when it is about a campaign for a product. Fiddle Faddle 12:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- each source bar one (IMDB) appears to be focused on this person's campaign for Ibogaine. Only a few sentences in this article are not about this topic. Agree with nominator about coatrack, and would add that this article may fall into the guideline for people notable for only one event. As it stands, I would want to see more sources about other aspects of this individual's life, and I am not sure if that is possible... Lesion (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A person could be notable as a leading advocate for a drug therapy. So long as the sources support it. Treatment Magazine says Kogan is "arguably the leading proponent of Ibogaine treatment".[1] The problem is the sources are sketchy, they may be press releases hiding as news stories; it's difficult to tell how reliable the sources are. Since this is a medical topic it would be good to have mainstream academic sources to ensure it's not snakeoil or fringe science. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I personally think from reading the references that while there is focus on his campaign's for Ibogaine, this makes him notable. I wouldn't really say he's only notable for one event, he seems to have worked with Ibogaine for a number of years and setup clinics to treat using the drug. I do agree that further info from academic sources would help. 193.109.199.71 (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)(Note: This user is not exactly a Special Purpose Account, but their very first Wikipedia edit was this comment; they then commented at a few other unrelated AfD discussions.)[reply]

Keep - Article was stripped to a stub. Information about his campaigns and promotional wording removed. Only information about him and his activism should be in the article, not everything that can be found about ibogaine. Ibogaine has its own article. He is an activist and has reliable sources to show that, but Wikipedia is not a place to push your agenda. Subject is notable, but there are not references to support the amount of content that was previously in the article. Keep as stub, trash without it. --OperaJaws (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC) — OperaJaws (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete I found no evidence of notability, even when I looked at the past history to see what had been removed from the article. A Google News Archive search found literally nothing. As far as I can tell, he is not an "activist"; he is a professional promoter of the drug. An alternative to deletion would be a redirect to Ibogaine, but personally I don't think he is notable enough for even a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is not notable in connection with the drug. That may be his only claim to notability, but he does not pass the general notability guidelines for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are not so specific. It's up to us to reach consensus if being an advocate of this drug is notable or not. The sources do say he is a known (leading?) advocate in connection with the drug. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2013 (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.