Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffry Life (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffry Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In response to comments right below this, I'm thinking that maybe the real question is if the various editions of his diet book make him notable. Other than his own account of who he was, and the subsequent updated versions of the book, there really doesn't seem to be any substantive info about him. Notability of the book would hinge on its sales figures. I've not run across anything about the sales numbers of his book, only that he later released updated editions. — Maile (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eastman. Change to delete as interviews don't count for notability. There are articles from the BBC, LA Times, New York Times Magazine, and The Times in the lead, so he clearly passes WP:GNG and ANYBIO isn't relevant. I agree it's not a very good page, but it needs improvement rather than deletion. --CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @CohenTheBohemian:The BBC and LA Times are interviews as for the other two you mentioned I don't know as I don't have a subscription for either of them. So it does not pass WP:GNG as those two are not independent, the other two may not be either but I can't check. OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this might be an odd case of having adequate sources to establish GNG but ultimately not being suitable for a main space article. Right now, I see no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. The peer-reviewed paper from 1968 would largely have been replaced by more modern theories (I think), but we seem to have enough to keep, perhaps as an "anti-ageing activist"? Oaktree b (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets criteria of WP:GNG. However, article has to be rewritten according to the encyclopedia rules in order to have a value for people.
ContributorMix (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The BBC and LA Times are interviews as for the other two you mentioned I don't know as I don't have a subscription for either of them. So it does not pass WP:GNG as those two are not independent, the other two may not be either but I can't check. OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 25 September 2023 (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.