Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Cowan (alternative medicine practitioner)

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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Cowan (alternative medicine practitioner) (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)

This individual does not appear to be notable apart from being on the board of a relatively unknown foundation. This appears more self-promotional than educational. PureRED | talk to me | 20:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, COVID-19, and Medicine. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence for notability. And the third paragraph in Career is a hot mess, and significantly under referenced, considering the bold claims made there.I was reviewing vandalized version. Withholding judgment until I have time to review correct version. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (I created the text) Wait a minute... the article was nominated for deletion 3 minutes after an anonymous user edited out most of the text and references, and the vandalism continued since then. Please make sure you're voting on a non-vandalized version. @Rsjaffe: I see your vote was made during one such period where edits that were later canceled were on the page. I see there are additional mentions of the topic in recent sources, I'm going to add them. But again, please check the History tab before you comment here, you may not be voting on a stable version. Robincantin (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously fringey as anything but does pass the notability threshold. Alexbrn (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are enough sources to assess that Cowan achieved some notoriety for promoting conspiracy theories. My initial impression was that WP:1E may apply considering that many sources are about 5G and I almost chose "weak keep", but Cowan was already in the news before for other reasons. —PaleoNeonate – 18:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly notable. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:41, 13 March 2022 (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.