730:"Here's a guy who didn't like his job, his bosses moved him, and hey, even though he didn't like it, he's good at it. Oh, he also thinks crackpots are crackpots, wrote a couple papers in his field, and a couple of pretty unknown sci fi novels." I really haven't seen any major arguments for notability. Should EMS ramp up his activism against moregollums or whatever it's called, and become a national speaker against the diagnosis, or do the same for Chronic Lyme, or any other disease, and become known for being not the loudest mouth, but the best mind against it, that would be notable. Being one among many saying it's a load of hooey does not make him notable to me. Couple that with his desire to NOT be on here, as a dubiously notable person, and I really have to support deletion.
837:), though not significant enough to be mentioned in the article about the controversey. Given the polarization of his situation, which does seem to be noteworthy, it is unlikely that there are any truly disinterested parties who could write an informed article in a NPOV using only the sort of sources acceptable for citation in WIkipedia. However, if such article could be written, it would be worth having. How close is the current article to meeting such a standard? Hard to tell. --
569:"In a few days." Is that the policy: to leave questionable or libelous material on your site long enough for it to be seen by thousands of Wiki users, then replicated by Google, Reference, Answer, etc. so it can be stored and retrieved by anyone from any number of other sites forever? Very reasonable, very responsible of you. I'm going on vacation for a few days; when I get back we'll settle this in public, not behind Wiki's barred doors.
663:. There are a some stories from 2003 about how he says he was being "paid to do nothing". The news stories were simply reporting this interesting claim because it suggested some sort of corruption. There do not appear to be any more independent sources since that time. This biography serves to document someone's briefly famous dispute with their employer. Knowledge is not a news archive, notability is weak, and the subject wants it deleted.
248:(pending sourcing from Blueboy96) I find it absurd that the subject would think to call us "vandals" when his first contribution here was to POV-push and delete cited material from reputable sources. All that aside, I don't think the subject is sufficiently notable for inclusion, regardless of their desire to have a bio or here or not.
399:
which was published this month. The guy's happy to publicly pronounce on other people and gets bent when people who cite reliable sources write about him. (He did have a justifiable complaint with the original version of the article though.) He pops up all over on Google; while much of it is nasty
729:
Although I was involved in stubbing the article from its previous form to avoid a lot of the issues EMS had. I want to acknowledge that the current version is a much better assembled article, and those responsible should be wikipedia's stub patrol. However, even now, the article basically says
366:
as the newest version cites multiple (well, just two...but that's multiple!) excellent sources asserting and supporting the notability of the subject. I would be amenable to discussing merging this article in to the NIH article but that is a separate discussion and an editorial decision.
795:
Actually, you're not quite right here. Not even admins with oversight access can see oversight-deleted articles. We can view the log of what was deleted in this fashion, but not see the content. Only developers with SQL access can do that; there is no route to this content in-Wiki.
772:- He seems notable, and assuming the newest version is up to snuff and satisfies the subject, I propose that the past history of the article be purged. Talk page also if deemed necessary. That would leave it still available to admins, if needed, but not the casual user. -
555:; I'm simply not notable, even though a Google search will turn up quite a bit of trivia about me. Dr McSweegan is somewhere in the middle, and that's what interested parties are debating here. In a few days, an administrator will come along and decide what happens next.
208:
BTW, the subject edited the "bad" version in question himself and made no effort to remove negative material, instead choosing to employ point-by-point rebuttal to each point he disagreed with, very messy by WP standards. This is in versions now removed by oversight.
412:
Despite the fact that the article has been substantially cleaned up, McSweegan is still ranting about it not being "approved" by him and that it was "lifted" from certain sources without permission. I'm starting to wonder how much longer we can assume good faith.
465:
indicate. He has held a significant government post in his field (more than one, actually) and has been covered in depth for his views. I'd love to make this go away by deleting the article but unless OFFICE comes up with a rationale for that I have to stay with
531:) to prevent those very problems. If there are inaccuracies in an article, by all means bring them forward for discussion. We value accuracy very highly, and are working constantly to ensure that our articles are more accurate and thorough.
502:
Doesn't it matter what I think about being subjected to a Wiki entry for reasons unknown, by persons unknown? How can deleting something intended to defame and harass someone be a bad precdent? Whatever happened to honesty and accuracy?
677:
It seems Dr. McSweegan's issue is that the original version is still in the history (per his statement here that it was "intended to defame and harass me"). Oversighting it would take care of the problem, in my view.
169:
libel and slander problem" (emphasis added). That doesn't mean they should be deleted. Rather, that means that we as editors must keep an eye on our articles and ensure they do not contain libelous statements.
741:
It seems to me that McSweegan's main objection was that the original version was still in the article's history. I personally think the oversighting removes the issue from play--hopefully Dr. McSweegan agrees.
522:
Dr. McSweegan, it seems that we've gotten off on the wrong foot here. By no means is the site here to defame and harass people. In fact, we have several core policies in place (most importantly regarding
759:
This article has some NPOV issues, but if Dr. McSweegan wishes for 'his side of the story' to be represented, his best course of action is to create more sources (interviews) so they may be used in the
432:
513:
I do not understand your assertion that the article is "intended to defame and harass someone". Can you please expand on that, preferably with examples from the current version of the article? --
391:
the subject is notable; besides the references now in the article, the subject keeps injecting himself publicly into significant public health controversies, such as Lyme disease and more recently
454:
462:
458:
545:
When closing AfDs about living persons whose notability is ambiguous, the closing admin should take into account whether the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted.
334:
That there was an entire CBS Evening News article solely focused on this individual contradicts your assertion of CSD A7. I have no comment on the alleged BLP issues. --
110:
783:
The past history of the article has been oversighted ... that was done yesterday. It's only visible to admins with oversight access--but not to the casual user.
52:
231:
I'm in the midst of a major rewrite of this article, per verifiable information from highly reliable sources (CBS News, WaPo). Please give it a chance ...
579:
I thought about it and thought about it, and requested oversight of the relevant versions. Did this before discovering this comment by Dr. McSweegan.
540:
485:
I hope Office doesn't delete it just because he doesn't want it there. If that were to happen, it would set a very bad precedent for
Knowledge.
83:
78:
49:
87:
70:
17:
918:
there is nothing that is too defamatory or critical about the subject. Most criticism is against McSweegan's employer.
805:
547:
What we're doing here is arguing about whether or not Dr. McSweegan is sufficiently notable to justify an article. If
941:
36:
940:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
834:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
926:
906:
875:
841:
825:
809:
790:
776:
764:
749:
734:
721:
698:
685:
667:
653:
642:
619:
603:
586:
573:
559:
535:
517:
492:
478:
442:
420:
404:
383:
371:
358:
338:
325:
294:
266:
252:
238:
213:
203:
191:
174:
153:
136:
627:
I think what has Dr. McSweegan so upset is that the original version of the article was the definition of an
833:- McSweegan does seem to be a player in a controversey significant enough to have its own separate article (
761:
695:
196:
Somehow I would think that if the original version were oversighted, the libel issue would be eliminated.
920:
551:
asked for his article to be deleted, it wouldn't be. If someone created an article about me, it should be
117:
Notability is not conclusively proven. Writing several books and journal pieces are not enough to satisfy
628:
74:
347:
It's fixed ... to my mind, the fact that he was a program officer at the NIH is enough to be notable.
187:, based on significant improvement to the article, but also comments (below) allegedly by the subject.
888:
822:
570:
439:
380:
272:
787:
746:
682:
639:
632:
583:
489:
417:
355:
263:
235:
200:
396:
838:
691:
617:
475:
899:
320:
180:
146:
129:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
631:. It was also heavily plagiarized. I'm starting to think that the best solution here is to
400:"echo chamber" stuff written by folks he's annoyed, he's not exactly an anonymous scientist.
351:--but give a stern warning to Freyfaxi for potentially causing legal problems for Knowledge.
801:
552:
66:
58:
858:
509:
Please note that the above editor purports to be the subject of this biographical article.
379:. Current version appears adequately sourced, and the news coverage supports notability.
872:
784:
773:
743:
679:
636:
580:
528:
486:
414:
352:
279:
from last year. Regardless of the user's prior activity, Blueboy96's version satisfies
260:
232:
197:
717:
664:
612:
556:
524:
471:
467:
401:
311:
307:
210:
892:
731:
650:
600:
532:
514:
368:
335:
315:
291:
276:
249:
188:
183:
is the name of the article and the collection of torts. I would change my vote to
171:
150:
122:
104:
797:
397:
Pathogens & People: Internet helps spread delusion that
Morgellons a disease
284:
280:
118:
866:
392:
548:
712:
649:
I think that is an excellent suggestion should this article be kept. --
259:
As I understand it, the original version was heavily plagiarized.
934:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
821:- Seems notable enough for inclusion in this project. --
884:
100:
96:
92:
857:
as there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it.
849:
Where did the subject request deletion? If he did,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
433:list of Academics and educators-related deletions
944:). No further edits should be made to this page.
635:all versions prior to ThuranX's edit of today.
453:, individual is clearly notable as a search of
121:. Also, its subject is asking for deletion. —
8:
145:per nom and subject. This is a potential
431:: This debate has been included in the
7:
611:per Espresso Addict and Dhartung. —
529:maintaining a neutral point of view
24:
710:in the present form, and watch.
525:the biographies of living people
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
50:Can't sleep, clown will eat me
1:
961:
927:02:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
907:05:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
876:01:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
842:18:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
826:17:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
810:19:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
791:16:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
777:16:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
765:09:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
750:12:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
735:03:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
722:02:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
699:01:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
686:00:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
668:23:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
654:00:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
643:23:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
620:23:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
604:22:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
587:01:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
574:00:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
560:23:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
536:22:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
518:21:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
493:19:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
479:19:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
443:17:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
421:18:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
405:17:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
384:17:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
372:17:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
359:16:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
339:16:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
326:16:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
295:01:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
267:17:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
253:16:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
239:16:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
214:20:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
204:00:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
192:23:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
175:17:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
154:16:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
137:15:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
53:07:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
937:Please do not modify it.
887:from this very page has
835:Lyme disease controversy
32:Please do not modify it.
770:Keep, but purge history
798:Matthew Brown (Morven)
287:, so my !vote is now
119:notability guidelines
891:saying just that. —
690:And it's been done.
455:Google News Archive
271:I was referring to
762:Archon of Atlantis
395:, see for example
922:Pats Sox Princess
757:Keep and Clean Up
510:
445:
436:
324:
181:Libel and slander
147:libel and slander
952:
939:
923:
902:
895:
869:
863:
615:
553:speedily deleted
508:
437:
427:
318:
132:
125:
108:
90:
67:Edward McSweegan
59:Edward McSweegan
34:
960:
959:
955:
954:
953:
951:
950:
949:
948:
942:deletion review
935:
921:
900:
893:
889:User:Emcsweegan
871:
867:
859:
613:
599:per Dhartung.--
440:Espresso Addict
381:Espresso Addict
130:
123:
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
958:
956:
947:
946:
930:
929:
912:
911:
910:
909:
879:
878:
865:
853:, but if not,
844:
828:
815:
814:
813:
812:
780:
779:
767:
753:
752:
738:
737:
724:
704:
703:
702:
701:
696:The otter sank
671:
670:
657:
656:
646:
645:
622:
606:
592:
590:
589:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
511:
505:
504:
500:Please delete.
496:
495:
482:
481:
463:Google Scholar
447:
446:
424:
423:
407:
386:
374:
361:
344:
343:
342:
341:
329:
328:
300:
299:
298:
297:
256:
255:
241:
225:
224:
223:
222:
221:
220:
219:
218:
217:
216:
165:article is a "
157:
156:
115:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
957:
945:
943:
938:
932:
931:
928:
925:
924:
917:
914:
913:
908:
904:
903:
896:
890:
886:
883:
882:
881:
880:
877:
874:
870:
864:
862:
856:
852:
848:
845:
843:
840:
839:Pleasantville
836:
832:
829:
827:
824:
820:
817:
816:
811:
807:
803:
799:
794:
793:
792:
789:
786:
782:
781:
778:
775:
771:
768:
766:
763:
758:
755:
754:
751:
748:
745:
740:
739:
736:
733:
728:
725:
723:
719:
715:
714:
709:
706:
705:
700:
697:
693:
692:Theresa Knott
689:
688:
687:
684:
681:
676:
673:
672:
669:
666:
662:
659:
658:
655:
652:
648:
647:
644:
641:
638:
634:
630:
626:
623:
621:
618:
616:
610:
607:
605:
602:
598:
595:
594:
593:
588:
585:
582:
578:
577:
576:
575:
572:
561:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
539:
538:
537:
534:
530:
526:
521:
520:
519:
516:
512:
507:
506:
501:
498:
497:
494:
491:
488:
484:
483:
480:
477:
473:
469:
464:
460:
456:
452:
449:
448:
444:
441:
434:
430:
426:
425:
422:
419:
416:
411:
408:
406:
403:
398:
394:
390:
387:
385:
382:
378:
375:
373:
370:
365:
362:
360:
357:
354:
350:
346:
345:
340:
337:
333:
332:
331:
330:
327:
322:
317:
313:
309:
305:
302:
301:
296:
293:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
269:
268:
265:
262:
258:
257:
254:
251:
247:
246:
242:
240:
237:
234:
230:
227:
226:
215:
212:
207:
206:
205:
202:
199:
195:
194:
193:
190:
186:
182:
178:
177:
176:
173:
168:
164:
161:
160:
159:
158:
155:
152:
148:
144:
143:Speedy delete
141:
140:
139:
138:
134:
133:
126:
120:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
936:
933:
919:
915:
898:
860:
854:
850:
846:
830:
818:
769:
756:
726:
711:
707:
674:
660:
624:
608:
596:
591:
568:
544:
499:
459:Google Books
450:
428:
409:
388:
376:
363:
348:
303:
288:
277:Lyme disease
275:'s edits to
244:
243:
228:
184:
166:
162:
142:
128:
116:
45:
43:
31:
28:
629:attack page
185:weak delete
571:Emcsweegan
393:morgellons
273:Emcsweegan
179:Comments:
774:Crockspot
633:oversight
597:Weak keep
549:Tom Delay
167:potential
149:problem.
885:revision
847:Question
760:article.
665:shotwell
557:Studerby
472:Dhartung
402:Studerby
211:Studerby
111:View log
894:Shinhan
831:Comment
785:Blueboy
744:Blueboy
732:ThuranX
680:Blueboy
675:Comment
651:ElKevbo
637:Blueboy
625:Comment
601:JForget
581:Blueboy
533:Caknuck
515:ElKevbo
487:Blueboy
415:Blueboy
410:Comment
369:ElKevbo
353:Blueboy
336:ElKevbo
316:Edokter
292:Caknuck
261:Blueboy
250:Caknuck
233:Blueboy
229:Comment
198:Blueboy
189:Bearian
172:ElKevbo
151:Bearian
124:Shinhan
84:protect
79:history
851:delete
727:Delete
661:Delete
614:Travis
543:says:
541:Policy
468:WP:BIO
312:WP:BLP
308:CSD A7
304:Delete
245:Delete
88:delete
905:: -->
897:<
861:Giggy
163:Every
135:: -->
127:<
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
916:Keep
901:talk
855:keep
819:Keep
718:talk
708:Keep
609:Keep
527:and
476:Talk
470:. --
461:and
451:Keep
429:Note
389:Keep
377:Keep
364:Keep
349:Keep
321:Talk
310:and
306:per
289:Keep
285:WP:V
283:and
281:WP:N
131:talk
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
46:keep
823:Tom
713:DGG
503:EMS
435:.
109:– (
48:.
808:)
788:96
747:96
720:)
694:|
683:96
640:96
584:96
490:96
474:|
457:,
418:96
367:--
356:96
314:--
264:96
236:96
201:96
170:--
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
873:P
868:U
806:C
804::
802:T
800:(
716:(
438:—
323:)
319:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.