673:(single-page) spends only "one sentence" on Moss, but the article bears reading to show that's not true. 86 claims "not a book review at all", when in fact it clearly states "Mr. Moss's book is a detailed and quite readable study of the life of a man" and "he presents a generally sympathetic portrait of a man he clearly admires. He does not, however, gloss over ...". Bluntly, it's a book review.
863:
881:
I apologise. I didn't mean for it to be uncivil; I merely meant to express disagreement, but was balancing 10 pages at the time, so was probably too blunt in my analysis. Honestly, if book reviews are enough, we can probably close this now; we'll be limited in how much we can say, but, I suppose DGG
858:
would be on the bubble, without best-seller or other notable attached events or RS pub of any bio details. However, we have broader coverage than that, fortunately: films, officialdom, organizations, advocacy, etc., and we don't know any of his book sales ranks. I hope for depth at the library, and
594:
We can make a fine stub article that lists the non-controversial stuff, where he was born, went to school, worked, etc., plus a bibliography with a few reviews. That's enough. Whoever tagged the fact that he graduated such and such a school with "self-published source" was being overenthusiastic.
392:
notability. Library holdings are not a formal criterion and are not regarded a proving it, but they help show the notability. I can't imagine hundreds of mainstream health care libraries buying these books if he were not a major influence to be contended with. For most works by alternative
404:
non-academic reference they include. and gives him a profile I am really puzzled how the i.p. nom missed all this -- which is just from Google News
Archive, supplemented with Google. Maybe he didn't look--I notice he does not say he made any attempt to check for references. The first
188:
Note that the only good, strong sources in the article... are just background sources, not specifically about him, used merely to provide the mainstream view on fringe theories he espouses. Once you ignore those, you end up with an incredibly weakly-sourced article, with no apparent hope of
906:. Text is a harsh medium; things can easily seem to be what they are not. I think a certain amount of grumpiness should be permitted, but I also overreact. I'm fine with this staying open for the usual period, for other voices (I've been wrong before), or withdrawing. --
318:: I think this is really on the borderline in terms of notability criteria; it could probably be argued either way. But when you have borderline notability in the BLP of a controversial individual, I think we should default to delete, so that's what I'd support here.
205:
561:
where the subject didn't do anything to become notable, books aren't relatives, they're his professional output. Moss is an author; writing these books are what he does. Writing books that are this widely read and reviewed is a sign of notability in his field.
731:, verification has to be possible, not guaranteed to be easy or free. This includes university alumni records - all alumni can verify them, unwashed public cannot - but they are still considered verifiable, like it or not, because all it would take for
556:
per DGG's excellent sources. I do think he has it. Moss has written several very widely reviewed, notable, books. We normally consider that sufficient to make an article about the author. This isn't "inherited notability" in the sense of
151:
405:
commentator above right after him says he did look in G News--but he seems not to have found the many dozens of items, so maybe he didn't check in their
Archive also. It's time people stopped judging by appearances.
708:
If there were factual problems with that bio, it would either have been pulled or redacted. The NIH NLM PR office would not sanction unverifiable bios. As is the case with all secondary sources, we basically trust
456:
is, again, more focused on one of his books, so far as one can see through the paywall. While a useful source for discussing Moss' books, it doesn't appear to help us much for writing an article on him.
439:
is better, but - so far as I can see this side of the paywall - has no information on Moss himself, and so is worthless for making a biography of Moss. If you have access, and can show me wrong, please
538:
I admit this is surprising - one would think his career would make him more notable, but we have almost no information about him. I am happy to be shown wrong, but don't think DGG has as yet.
836:. As for evaluating DGG's sources, that's what one should be doing, surely: I disagreed, yes, but only after considering it. Had I NOT considered them, that would have been far worse.
193:- this is used in close paraphrase to provide the history of Moss' life, despite coming from a questionable transcript of Moss talking about himself. It's not a suitable source for a
145:
112:
775:
We permit wide latitude in primary sourcing, as long as secondary sources are also cited. Of course, extraordinary or controversial claims require stronger sources, but I see
393:
medicine figures, there may be many public libraries, but only a few universities trying for completeness. Regardless of that, the reviews prove the notability of the author.
735:
to verify that source is to register for a class, or befriend an alumnus, etc. An editor cannot arbitrarily exclude sources that he cannot or will not personally verify, see
183:
952:
There is no way possible his books can be notable, without the writer being notable. The source found by DGG prove he is a notable writer since they talk about his work.
271:
249:
A search of Google News, Scholar and Books have not shown any substantial information with which to build an encyclopedic article from independent sources. Redirect to
293:
396:
In declining the prod, I gave considerable weight to his membership on the
Alternative Medicine Program Advisory Council of the National Institutes of Health. The
369:
published by the
Abrahamson Cancer Center of the University of Penna. -- and there are 464 WorldCat holdings, again including all major university libraries-
520:
can be constructed for Ralph W. Moss. A BLP has too high of standards to go by inherited notability. His books likely could have encyclopedic articles on them,.
400:
apparently agrees with me, for they found this appointment worth an article . The NIH also in its principal public review on
Laetrile lists his work as the
346:
for March 13, 1988. . We've always considered that by itself as notability. And it is is in 364 WorldCat libraries, including all major academic libraries.
854:. Your courteous reply above frees me to AGF going forward. Analysis is good, but should still be civil. I tend to agree that book authorship and reviews
720:
The sources rule. Is the nom suggesting deleting all of the author BLPs, even though their works have attained considerable notability? I would hope not.
85:
80:
89:
812:, which may have won an award. My point is, sources exist, probably offline. The fact that the online independent biographical material is thin is
512:
specifically forbids claims about organisations or other people, and, while an interview isn't literally self-published, the principle still applies.
676:
The way I read it was that it mentioned the book, then went on to talk about the subject, without mentioning the book again. I did skim, however.
72:
481:
475:
453:
436:
641:
article found by DGG is probative: the man has been publicly notable for a number of years. GNG. Let's go ahead and cite that in the article.
182:
Not really covered in reliable sources. Quite simply, there's just not enough information to make a sufficiently good, balanced article, and
670:
599:, when someone writes he personally graduated such and such a school, we believe them. That's not the "unduly self serving" material that
786:
It is unseemly for a nom to argue, belittle, and gainsay every single point of every !vote different than the noms, and this should stop.
166:
716:
sources (the reason for so few BLP GAs!). Most secondary sources about living authors consist of spotchecked autobios, and interviews.
133:
430:
882:
and you are right - we can say a bit, and I guess there's no harm doing the little bit we can. We can always look at it again later.
17:
508:
Primary source. We can't use Moss to discuss himself, particularly the controversy involving the Sloan
Kettering Cancer Centre -
1005:, multiple sources can be utilized to establish topic notability. Paywalled book reviews are valid despite being paywalled: see
516:
Conclusion: I do not believe that DGG's references serve to show that an article conforming with the stringent standards of
127:
986:
is fully established with the broad number of books this individual has published, and has coverage across the internet. –
832:
First of all, I didn't think Book reviews would be good enough. I see that that's apparently acceptable, now, but please,
1034:
123:
36:
1019:
993:
975:
944:
915:
895:
876:
845:
825:
685:
612:
589:
571:
547:
416:
324:
307:
285:
262:
240:
227:
76:
54:
662:
About ref #7, a paragraph is quite sufficient. It meets the definition of "substantial", and is clearly not trivial.
493:
446:
merely shows that the book was a bestseller; it contains nothing about Moss. Once again, we need sources to make an
487:
469:
173:
753:
736:
499:
1033:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
990:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
482:
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/665807872.html?dids=665807872:665807872&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI
476:
http://www.worldcat.org/title/cancer-industry-unraveling-the-politics/oclc/19520628&referer=brief_results
454:
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/60067646.html?dids=60067646:60067646&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT
437:
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/58797649.html?dids=58797649:58797649&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT
443:
68:
60:
600:
558:
450:, BLP doesn't allow us to have a badly-sourced article, so if they don't exist, we can't have an article.
1013:
752:
based on his work were in the 80's, and articles about them and press releases will be on paper. Again,
139:
761:
459:
940:
632:(I've removed the misleading double blank lines above, which imply some sort of break in discussion.)
1006:
509:
987:
431:
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/06/books/a-cut-lemon-doesn-t-turn-brown.html?pagewanted=3&src=pm
159:
792:
764:, if there is reasonable certainty about the existence of sources, deletion should not be pursued.
757:
627:
198:
891:
841:
681:
585:
543:
236:
223:
1002:
580:
But what are we supposed to use to make the article? If there's no sources about him, we can't.
254:
253:
may be an option as most sources discuss his views on and involvement with
Laetrile/amygdalin.
204:
As for source #7, the only reliable source actually about Moss, it's available on Google books
850:
The seeming stridency of the analysis and its seeming ABF prompted my stern-ish wish for some
303:
281:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
472:
Another paywalled book review, unlikely to contain sufficient information about Moss himself.
953:
911:
872:
821:
630:; DGG had to do it for nom. The author's work is notable, author is notable, sources exist.
608:
567:
983:
833:
768:
724:
is conclusively notable through their works and offices held, which (now, thx DGG) have RS.
528:
524:
517:
215:
211:
194:
936:
258:
463:
190:
728:
887:
837:
677:
596:
581:
539:
433:
spends only one sentence on Moss, and is thus trivial. It's not a book review at all.
412:
320:
232:
219:
214:, we need top-notch sources. Without these, we pretty much have to fail it under the
363:
902:
740:
693:
505:
299:
277:
106:
696:
is not self-published; though it may have been provided by Moss, it is published
494:
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/460047391.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT
907:
868:
817:
604:
563:
488:
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/access/685618541.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT
470:
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/access/685618541.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT
466:; but, again, it's on the book, and contains next to nothing on Moss himself.
500:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/laetrile/HealthProfessional/page3
250:
50:
712:
In fact, most BLPs about authors of notable works are thin on biographical
207:
and from that, we can see the coverage is limited to a single paragraph.
407:
801:(production company, Pacific Street films). We'll have to go through
444:
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/13/books/best-sellers-march-13-1988.html
806:
796:
385:-- and 487 World Cat holdings, including the main academic libraries.
334:
as a notable writer. Meets WP:AUTHOR with several notable books His
460:
http://www.oncolink.org/library/article.cfm?c=1&s=12&id=118
531:(there simply isn't the substantial coverage in secondary sources
478:
This, of course, has nothing about Moss. It's a library catalogue.
199:
the guidelines for self-published sources by the article's subject
336:
Free radical : Albert Szent-Gyorgyi and the battle over vitamin C
1027:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
184:
searches for good sources have apparently failed for many years.
351:
His books on cancer have reviews similar or greater holdings:
935:– There are sources that show that this person is notable.
651:
zealous and incorrect, and seems to assume bad faith. I am
805:
1984/85 newspaper archives for reviews of that show and
218:, since we simply lack the material to make an article.
102:
98:
94:
201:, but it's arguably our main source for the article.
191:
http://www.annieappleseedproject.org/ralmosphdonl.html
158:
172:
791:Auxiliary supportive, but not definitive, source:
773:blatant promo, falsehoods, and defamatory content.
771:, we require sourcing primarily in order to avoid
535:that we require), we don't seem to have a choice.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1037:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1001:- Per notability guidelines for people, section
795:validates Moss's claim, of his film documentary
750:The two documentary productions broadcast by PBS
506:http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/WGBBMK.pdf
189:improvement. Source #3 is especially telling:
859:some movement of found sources into the text.
659:its errors: I sincerely hope nom will do so.
353:The cancer industry : unraveling the politics
272:list of Medicine-related deletion discussions
8:
294:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
292:Note: This debate has been included in the
270:Note: This debate has been included in the
798:Albert Szent-Gyorgyi: A Special Gift - 1984
291:
269:
527:(we need high-quality sources), and the
698:by the NIH National Library of Medicine.
197:, and fails pretty much every point of
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
860:
48:. DGG makes a convincing case here.
727:About the paywalled articles, per
24:
462:dubious as to whether this is an
903:"never give up, never surrender"
861:
671:"A Cut Lemon Doesn't Turn Brown"
834:assume a little good faith here
344:New York Times Bestseller List
1:
502:Does not discuss Moss at all.
1020:11:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
994:03:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
976:01:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
945:20:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
916:08:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
896:02:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
877:00:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
846:15:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
826:00:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
686:00:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
613:20:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
590:20:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
572:19:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
548:17:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
417:19:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
377:, itself has reviews in the
342:LA Times And it was on the
325:03:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
308:23:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
286:23:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
263:22:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
241:22:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
228:23:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
216:general notability guideline
212:biography of a living person
55:21:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
484:Paywalled book review, etc.
1054:
814:insufficient justification
779:in this article mandating
702:autobiographical statement
448:article on a living person
425:Going through in order:
373:, his earlier version of
1030:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
739:(trust me, I have some
706:biographical statement.
700:It is therefore not an
626:- nom did not execute
429:Your first reference,
69:Ralph W. Moss (writer)
61:Ralph W. Moss (writer)
747:PBS's two productions
783:pursuit of deletion.
523:In the end, between
423:Analysis by 86.** IP
355:has a review in the
332:Definite strong Keep
714:totally independent
375:The Cancer industry
371:The Cancer syndrome
1016:
603:warns us about. --
533:about Moss himself
44:The result was
1018:
1012:
816:for deletion. --
741:bitter experience
669:1988 book review
361:Publishers Weekly
310:
297:
288:
275:
1045:
1032:
1017:
1014:Northamerica1000
1010:
972:
969:
966:
963:
960:
957:
866:
865:
864:
639:The Toronto Star
298:
276:
177:
176:
162:
110:
92:
34:
1053:
1052:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1035:deletion review
1028:
1011:
970:
967:
964:
961:
958:
955:
862:
781:such a zealous
754:WP:SOURCEACCESS
737:WP:SOURCEACCESS
665:Nom claims the
644:Nom's analysis
597:rare exceptions
338:has reviews in
119:
83:
67:
64:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1051:
1049:
1040:
1039:
1023:
1022:
996:
988:Phoenix B 1of3
978:
947:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
852:strikethroughs
808:The Cancer War
789:
788:
787:
784:
777:no such claims
765:
744:
725:
718:We trust them.
710:
690:
689:
688:
663:
642:
635:
634:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
575:
574:
514:
513:
503:
497:
491:
485:
479:
473:
467:
457:
451:
441:
434:
420:
419:
394:
386:
348:
347:
340:New York Times
328:
327:
312:
311:
289:
266:
265:
180:
179:
116:
63:
58:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1050:
1038:
1036:
1031:
1025:
1024:
1021:
1015:
1008:
1004:
1000:
997:
995:
992:
989:
985:
982:
979:
977:
974:
973:
951:
948:
946:
942:
938:
934:
931:
930:
917:
913:
909:
905:
904:
899:
898:
897:
893:
889:
885:
880:
879:
878:
874:
870:
857:
853:
849:
848:
847:
843:
839:
835:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
823:
819:
815:
811:
809:
804:
800:
799:
794:
790:
785:
782:
778:
774:
770:
766:
763:
759:
755:
751:
748:
745:
742:
738:
734:
730:
726:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
679:
675:
674:
672:
668:
664:
661:
660:
658:
657:strikethrough
654:
650:
647:
643:
640:
637:
636:
633:
629:
625:
622:
621:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
593:
592:
591:
587:
583:
579:
578:
577:
576:
573:
569:
565:
560:
555:
552:
551:
550:
549:
545:
541:
536:
534:
530:
526:
521:
519:
511:
507:
504:
501:
498:
495:
492:
489:
486:
483:
480:
477:
474:
471:
468:
465:
461:
458:
455:
452:
449:
445:
442:
438:
435:
432:
428:
427:
426:
424:
418:
414:
410:
409:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
362:
358:
354:
350:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
330:
329:
326:
323:
322:
317:
314:
313:
309:
305:
301:
295:
290:
287:
283:
279:
273:
268:
267:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
245:
244:
243:
242:
238:
234:
230:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
208:
206:
202:
200:
196:
192:
186:
185:
175:
171:
168:
165:
161:
157:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
135:
132:
129:
125:
122:
121:Find sources:
117:
114:
108:
104:
100:
96:
91:
87:
82:
78:
74:
70:
66:
65:
62:
59:
57:
56:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1029:
1026:
998:
980:
954:
949:
932:
901:
883:
855:
851:
813:
807:
802:
797:
780:
776:
772:
749:
746:
732:
721:
717:
713:
705:
701:
697:
666:
656:
652:
648:
645:
638:
631:
623:
601:WP:ABOUTSELF
559:WP:INHERITED
553:
537:
532:
522:
515:
447:
422:
421:
406:
401:
398:Toronto Star
397:
389:
388:The reviews
382:
379:Boston Glove
378:
374:
370:
366:
360:
356:
352:
343:
339:
335:
331:
319:
315:
246:
231:
209:
203:
187:
181:
169:
163:
155:
148:
142:
136:
130:
120:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
981:Strong Keep
762:WP:PRESERVE
743:with this).
722:This author
655:tempted to
624:Strong keep
316:Weak delete
146:free images
1007:WP:PAYWALL
937:Inter rest
704:, it is a
510:WP:SELFPUB
758:WP:BEFORE
628:WP:BEFORE
300:• Gene93k
278:• Gene93k
251:Amygdalin
1003:WP:BASIC
888:86.** IP
884:Withdraw
838:86.** IP
678:86.** IP
667:NY Times
582:86.** IP
540:86.** IP
383:LA Times
367:Oncolink
357:LA Times
321:MastCell
233:86.** IP
220:86.** IP
113:View log
803:offline
756:. Per
694:NIH bio
152:WP refs
140:scholar
86:protect
81:history
991:(talk)
984:WP:GNG
908:Lexein
900:Gah -
869:Lexein
818:Lexein
810:- 1983
769:WP:BLP
767:About
733:anyone
653:sorely
605:GRuban
564:GRuban
529:WP:GNG
525:WP:BLP
518:WP:BLP
490:Ditto.
247:Delete
210:For a
195:WP:BLP
124:Google
90:delete
971:Focus
856:alone
709:them.
649:seems
595:With
496:Ditto
464:WP:RS
413:talk
390:prove
359:-and
255:Yobol
167:JSTOR
128:books
107:views
99:watch
95:links
16:<
999:Keep
950:Keep
941:talk
933:Keep
912:talk
892:talk
873:talk
867:. --
842:talk
822:talk
793:This
760:and
729:WP:V
692:The
682:talk
609:talk
586:talk
568:talk
554:Keep
544:talk
402:only
381:and
365:and
304:talk
282:talk
259:talk
237:talk
224:talk
160:FENS
134:news
103:logs
77:talk
73:edit
51:Tone
46:keep
440:do.
408:DGG
174:TWL
111:– (
1009:.
943:)
914:)
894:)
886:?
875:)
844:)
824:)
684:)
646:is
611:)
588:)
570:)
562:--
546:)
415:)
306:)
296:.
284:)
274:.
261:)
239:)
226:)
154:)
105:|
101:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
79:|
75:|
968:m
965:a
962:e
959:r
956:D
939:(
910:(
890:(
871:(
840:(
820:(
680:(
607:(
584:(
566:(
542:(
411:(
302:(
280:(
257:(
235:(
222:(
178:)
170:·
164:·
156:·
149:·
143:·
137:·
131:·
126:(
118:(
115:)
109:)
71:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.