Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Yazbak

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. JeremyA 22:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No potential to become encyopedic. The guy isn't notable. His names as reported in the article is brings up about a 10th of the number of google hits my lectures rack up an when you consider that the artilce strongly suggests his activities are mostly webased this is significant. See also wikipedia is not a soapbox.Geni 23:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• strong keep: As a prominent advocate for vaccine safety, the article on Dr. Yazbak should be kept. His works are routinely cited by other advocates. His courage in standing up to the political power of the medical establishment also makes him noteworthy as a whistleblower. Ombudsman 00:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. While there were only 810 hits on Google when I put in Yazbak and autism, the quality of the citations was generally pretty good, IMO. I think people who read his views may want some information on him. That is what an encyclopedia is good for. DS1953 01:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

acording to Web of knowlage the largest number of times his one papers has been cited is 12. that isn't very good.Geni 16:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per DS1953. Xoloz 03:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per DS1953. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and tag for cleanup. There are some POV issues, but there's no reason for deletion. Dystopos 22:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. jglc | t | c 16:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.