Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Kendrick: Difference between revisions

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Malcolm Kendrick (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)

Malcolm Kendrick is a fringe figure who agues against the lipid hypothesis. He denies that blood cholesterol levels are responsible for heart disease and in opposition to the medical community advocates a high-fat high-cholesterol diet as healthy. Problem is there is a lack of reliable sources that discuss his ideas. His book The Great Cholesterol Con was not reviewed in any science journals. Kendrick is involved with the The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics, I suggest deleting his article and redirecting his name to that. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a WP:BLPFRINGE currently only sourced to primary sources; I find a few articles by him on other sites but nothing about him. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the only mention of the Dr's opinion regarding statins in the main page is the statement "documents what the author perceived as the misguided use of statins in primary care". This appears to be an ad hominem attack "fringe figure" against the Dr due to disagreement with his very well documented premise in his book. The arguments and hypotheses he uses are well-researched and supported by a number of independent clinicians. Attempts to delete his entry amount to scientific censorship and should be resisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abamji (talk • contribs) 21:13, December 3, 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Those are not valid reasons. There is a lack of reliable sources that mention Malcolm Kendrick so that is why his article at Wikipedia should be deleted. But yes he is a fringe figure (only an extreme minority of researchers doubt the lipid hypothesis, mainstream science does not take him seriously (no academic journal reviewed his book etc). See the bottom section on the The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics for criticism. I just went over Kendrick's personal website, he is basically a conspiracy theorist. He thinks a low-carb high-fat diet with massive cholesterol levels is healthy and the medical community and government are trying to supress this fact. You talk about "censorship" so you are probably a fan of his. You edited my comment [1] and wrote "He is a Gallileo of our times, saying what others fear to say". This is a sign of a conspiracy theorist, not science. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the article subject's book being "reviewed in any science journals" is certainly not a prerequisite for the article subject possibly being notable by Wikipedia's standards. MPS1992 (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here is only one of the most recent research papers supporting Dr Kendrick's questioning of the lipid hypothesis, indicating the absence of link between consumption of high-saturated fat dairy foods and heart disease. Whether academic journals reviewed Dr Kendrick's books is neither here nor there; their purpose is to communicate recent research to the lay community.

^[1] Anarchie76 (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Here is only one of the most recent research papers supporting Dr Kendrick's questioning of the lipid hypothesis" - The purpose of this discussion is not to discuss the lipid hypothesis, it is to discuss Kendrick. The paper you cited does not mention Kendrick. There are no peer-reviewed science papers that mention Kendrick's research in detail. His article should be deleted per lack of reliable sources. Let's see what other users think. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The arguments to delete the book stem from citing a "majority of researchers" supporting a position. Unfortunately, that is not how science should evaluate the position of critics. It is open secret that the positions advocated by professional and scientific groups in favor of the lipid hypothesis are very, very, weak. Even within the last few years the AHA could only cite observational studies and highly confounded experimental interventions in favor of its advocacy of the lipid hypothesis. And the problematic nature of this fact is clear to anyone who has a modicum of training in statistics. For wikipedia to delete this entry means it has sided with arguments that are only based on appeals to authority and not scientific evidence. And no, citing consensus in a field where conclusions are nominally based on experimental evidence is not "scientific". In some disciplines, where experimental evidence is impossible to get that may be unavoidable, and there are clearly difficulties in obtaining experimental data with human subjects but the solution to that problem is not to rush to judgement or to side with those that would.Billwrlhopkins (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Abamji, Anarchie76, Billwrlhopkins have hardly any edits on Wikipedia but all voice the same conspiracy theory talk, two of these users were inactive on Wikipedia for months. I think this is a case of WP:MEAT. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Skeptic from Britain, you stated that 'his book The Great Cholesterol Con was not reviewed in any science journals'. Here is one ^[2].

As for my contributions to Wikipedia, they are very variable in frequency, depending on my workload, and many take place in other language versions. Your slur is unjustified. Anarchie76 (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is meat-puppetry/socking. I have never seen anything like this before. An admin please sort this out. Articles_for_deletion/Malcolm_Kendrick talk

• Miacol43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Anarchie76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GS120748 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Paul W Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Louis.Dia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RockyBob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Skeptic from Britain (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• ’’’KEEP’’’ The reason for proposing Kendrick's deletion appears to be on the content of his books, rather than on his written contribution to the cholesterol debate. But the entry is not about the cholesterol hypothesis it is a biographical entry, and as such it is an accurate and balanced statement of the man’s work. His books are bestsellers (449 reviews on the Great Cholesterol Con on Amazon). These reading figures validate him as being of public interest and therefore his entry is justified simply as a public figure. As for the books’ content, the cholesterol hypothesis is exactly that, a hypothesis. Given this, ANY opinion, short of cardiovascular disease being the work of fairies, is legitimate. Kendrick doesn’t have a specific opinion on what causes CVD, his blogs on the subject make that VERY plain (he is currently at part 52 or some such on ‘the causes of heart disease’ – this does not indicate a man who has a fixed idea of cholesterol’s role in CVD); what he does have an opinion on is that current scientific data does not fully support the cholesterol hypothesis and there is a lot of very contradictory evidence. Most researchers in the field would admit that there is contradictory evidence and the cholesterol hypothesis is far from water-tight, it’s just a best guess - hence the use of the word ‘hypothesis’ in its title. If scientists and writers are going to have their entries deleted simply because they question the current thinking then every researcher in every branch of science, particularly the outspoken or controversial ones, must also, for the sake of uniformity and fairness, have their entries deleted, and Wikipedia should make it clear that it does not contain up-to-date biographical detail of public figures but only the biographical detail of mainstream figures with no controversy surrounding their work. Pirate hamster (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - author of several books, and a 5 second google news search show mentions in Guardian and Telegraph [2], and many other news sources. Deletion request seems to be more of a response to Kendrick's stance which is critical to the mainstream, but notability is pretty clear here. ATren (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]