Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preston Long

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 delete. slakr\ talk / 11:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Long[edit]

Preston Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is written by Preston Long's publicist (who admitted so here: [1], after we thought it was an autobiography by Long himself. Still is, just written by proxy. Per WP:COI, WP:AUTOBIO, this ought to be deleted as a vanity piece.

Further, article subject does not meet notability standards per WP:GNG ColonelHenry (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by almighty coincidence, this guy's book plopped through my letterbox this morning. He's a "whistleblower" on chiropractic and his recently published book has been getting some coverage. Not sure about notability ... will dig and follow up ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In PMID 20642715 his court testimony as a chiropractor is mentioned.
  • He seems to have a couple of passing mentions in other journal articles; good coverage in a couple of fairly high-profile skeptic blog posts (e.g. here).
  • Comment This could be a borderline case. The question is whether he has enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:PEOPLE (and WP:ACADEMIC, probably). I'm uncertain about the aforementioned blog post, since it's a self-published source. Some of the other sources currently listed seem dubious to me as well. --Drm310 (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, it looks a bit dodgy; maybe something here could be merged to Chiropractic or one its associated articles. I'll dig a bit more ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am willing to help try to get this article into shape. Let's give it a few more days. Within reason, some types of self-published, primary sources, are allowed in such biographies, and in fact are pretty much required at times. I've known about him for many years, and he's certainly known within chiropractic circles, so that type of notability is worth considering. Notability outside the profession isn't necessarily a requirement for an article. I suspect chiropractic publications will provide a rich source of his writings and also the backlash against him from offended chiropractors. Threats against him are likely unpublished, so we won't be able to use them. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comment [See my follow-up below.] His first two non-fiction books are self-published. The third one is published by American Council on Science and Health (I suggest reading this section carefully), whose "review" is listed as a reference. Observe the dearth of library holdings at WorldCat. His novel is likewise self-published. Frankly, all the sources are dubious, even this one which is basically a blog and not peer-reviewed. Several are written by Long himself + another blog post, and a link to www.vocact.com which does not verify that he "was voted Chiropractor of the Year in 2009 by the Victims of Chiropractic Abuse", even if that were a notable "award", which it's not. So far it passes neither WP:GNG nor WP:PROF nor WP:AUTHOR. Despite some recent copyedits, it still contains large chunks copied verbatim from his Amazon blurb. Duplication Detector. If the AfD decision is to keep it, it will need a fundamental re-write. Voceditenore (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the interim, I've found and added a few decent references to the article. I've also done some pretty major copy-editing to remove the PR-blurb tone (and copyvio) and restructured the information. I've added a some more information (with references) and have removed some assertions for which there are no references available and unlikely to be. I'm now sitting on the fence temporarily. I suggest that those who have suggested deletion take a look at the article in its new state. Voceditenore (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second that emotion. After all, if we're good wikipedians, we should be seeking to build, not destroy, so we should hope this works out. If it doesn't, then nuke it, but not before then. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any notability that wasn't a result of PR. One would think that if he'd been involved in all those court cases on a controversial subject, there would be some press coverage. But no. John Nagle (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Skepticism. Voceditenore (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of the independent in-depth sourcing that would allow us to write a verifiable and neutral article and that would allow the subject to pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hey, he's in Marquis' Who's Who!! And he's an avid hunter!! And he paid some vanity publishers to produce his books. Do I need to say more? --Randykitty (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Randykitty, the committee does not approve of sarcasm. It's not as dangerous as irony, but it is still unacceptable. We expect you to flog yourself severely for it. For the committee, Drmies (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bowing my head in shame... Will floss flog... --Randykitty (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going to Neutral for now, awaiting proper sourcing, which seems possible. --Randykitty (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I thought perhaps he might be notable as an author, but none of his books are in more than 8 libraries, which for popular books on health amounts to zero impact. I don't think there will be anything substantial to source. If the books were reviewed, that didn't in this case make them notable. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I lean delete, but his two Peer Reviewed Articles have not been discussed here (both are reviews, not studies). I am not familiar with the two journals so I am not sure if they meet WP:Notability (academics).
  1. Long was sole author on the first article which was publish in the Journal for Healthcare Quality.
  2. Long was co-author on the second article which was published in the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics.

So a PhD associate professor with two peer-reviewed articles (need to check journal quality) and one published book of limited circulation. I could see a possible keep, but I am soft delete at the moment. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Publishing only two articles is not particularly impressive, especially for an associate professor. Many of our subjects publish hundreds. And in any case it is not the fact that the subject published something, nor even the number of publications, that matters, but rather their impact (usually measured in citations). Google scholar finds only five citations for "Stroke and Spinal Manipulation" and only one for "Keeping Junk Chiropractic Out Of Court". That is far below the usual standards of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless that is the normal citation rate for the field (per: Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation_metrics). Like you, I assume these are low, but I don't know this field or these journals, so for all we know, this is a normal citation impact for a Chiropractor. After all, the critique is that they don't do science or acknowledge scientific critique so we would need some normative number to compare. Additionally, I don't know how well Chiropractor journals are covered in Google Scholar or PubMed which could mean that he is cited a lot more but it's not represented in those to engines. I am leaning delete, but I think someone who's researched these journals better should weigh in before the article is deleted. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've read the article, looked at refs, and the discussion above. My conclusion is that he doesn't qualify for inclusion under WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. (His latest book, in which he supposedly makes those groundbreaking confessions, is held in just two libraries [2]. His 2002 book in just six [3]. His PRESTON method book in just one [4].) Coverage in "high-profile skeptic blog posts" doesn't seem to qualify per WP:GNG and more importantly self-published blogs can't be used as sources per WP:BLPSPS. Also, if the WorldCat data is correct, Stephen Barrett is a co-author to Long's latest book, so Barrett's coverage of Long is therefore not so independent. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:09, 9 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Preston_Long&oldid=1138252509"