Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 96: Line 96:
* '''Delete''' Most of what I can find is promotional. I do not seem the requisite independent coverage. [[User:Natureium|Natureium]] ([[User talk:Natureium|talk]]) 16:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' Most of what I can find is promotional. I do not seem the requisite independent coverage. [[User:Natureium|Natureium]] ([[User talk:Natureium|talk]]) 16:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' – after further research, I can't find enough coverage in independent reliable sources to write a balanced article, or even to source the information that's there now. Fails [[WP:NBIO]] and [[WP:NAUTHOR]]. [[User_talk:Bradv|<span style="color:#C60">Brad</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Bradv|<span style="color:#C60">v</span>]]🍁 16:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' – after further research, I can't find enough coverage in independent reliable sources to write a balanced article, or even to source the information that's there now. Fails [[WP:NBIO]] and [[WP:NAUTHOR]]. [[User_talk:Bradv|<span style="color:#C60">Brad</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Bradv|<span style="color:#C60">v</span>]]🍁 16:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' On reliable sources,, pubmed lists Malcolm Kendrick's 11 papers (co-author and sole author) in well known peer-reviewed journals, and his 3 books (plus contributions to two other books) are on sale on the major bookseller's websites. These things are very easily checked, and clearly show his research credentials. I cannot reconcile the last few 'delete' statements with the clear information at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=malcolm+kendrick. Please explain. He is clearly nothing like the "eighty or so GPs currently at work at the hospital down the street".

Revision as of 17:09, 4 December 2018

Malcolm Kendrick

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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]
"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]
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)— Pirate hamster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You have hardly any edits on Wikipedia and your last edit was 17 March 2011. How did you find this deletion discussion? Has Malcolm Kendrick advertised it to his associates? Skeptic from Britain (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What relevance does the number of edits and the date of them have to the topic of this proposed deletion? I take it Malcolm Kendrick's proposed deletion is not for his edit history? Pirate hamster (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It suggests you're a sock or meatpuppet, which you are. EEng 05:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I created a sock-puppet in 2011 so that I could take part in this discussion in 2018? Now, that's what I call forward-planning. Leave the compound.Pirate hamster (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's happened many times. We call them sleepers. EEng 06:15, 4 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]
You haven't been active on Wikipedia since 7 May 2015 yet you turn up here today. The socking and meat-puppetry on here has gotten out of hand. Other new accounts are still leaving comments here Articles_for_deletion/Malcolm_Kendrick talk Skeptic from Britain (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can address my substantive points rather than attacking my lack of activity? ATren (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is some newspaper coverage, but this sets up a false balance, the Guardian article [3] was written by Kendrick himself and the others only mention Kendrick in a single sentence or two. In the Telegraph article[4] the British Heart Foundation disputed a study which Kendrick co-authored and claims was "robust". But none of these articles are specifically about Kendrick. Aseem Malhotra an associate of Kendrick has reliable sources on his article and newspaper coverage. Kendrick lacks reliable sources that discuss his ideas in any detail. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What a load of Bollux! @malcolmken is one of the most knowledgeable physicians out there explaining the truth about Cholesterol & diet heart hypothesis to the general public- deserves a knighthood at least 😡 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.230.253.14 (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Skeptic from Britain is making a great deal of noise in this discussion about sock-puppets, criticising other contributors' edit history and debating the validity of new users while criticising long-time users, like myself, for being around too long! This strikes me as not only irrelevant (and deflective) but inflammatory. As for his demand: “How did you find this deletion discussion? Has Malcolm Kendrick advertised it to his associates?” it should be pointed out that Kendrick is a popular author (this, after all, is what we are allegedly debating!), who has a lively blog where he talks about not only the science of cardiovascular disease, but also about the state of research and free discussion in medicine. Given that this is the essential nature of the author’s work, it is not only likely but a given that he would a) write about this proposed deletion and b) discuss it on his blog. To expect that he wouldn’t, or that this discussion could somehow be kept private for Wikipedia’s regular editors only, is naïve in the extreme – and bizarrely elitist. What’s more, it smacks of the very conspiracy ideology that Skeptic from Britain has accused Kendrick of exhibiting. The increased number of contributors entering into this discussion is not a conspiracy, it is the natural result of this proposed deletion being discussed on a popular site with high viewing figures – in itself, further proof that Kendrick is a pubic figure whose biographical entry should therefore remain.Pirate hamster (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pirate hamster - I never said this discussion should be kept private, but the current keep votes are mostly invalid because they are not from active Wikipedia users, they are the result of an unethical canvassing scheme. Now we all know this is a canvassing issue [5], as users such as yourself have come from Kendrick's blog. There are twelve new accounts in the last 24 hours voting to keep Kendick's article on the deletion talk-page, some of which voted here. This is against Wikipedia policy, see WP:MEAT. I have never ever seen anything like this before on a Wikipedia deletion discussion. This page should be protected IMO and locked for only autoconfirmed users. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Skeptic - it is not "an unethical canvassing scheme" to ask the readers of your blog if they can throw light on who is trying to unwrite you from history. Kendrick does not say "go in your droves and post on Wikipedia" or anything remotely like it. His sole interest in the matter is who you are and his sole 'canvassing' is "Perhaps user Skeptic from Britain would like to reveal himself and provide some information as to why he is so interested in trying to wipe me out? Perhaps one or two of you here could join in the discussion and see what emerges." No encouraging anyone to campaign for his redemption, no inciting riot, just an understandable need to know why you have singled him out for deletion, other than because you disagree with his hypotheses. You can’t be surprised by this as you make it very plain that you do indeed wish to delete his entry because you disagree with his hypotheses. That is quite straightforward censorship, hence the responses you are getting on here. And I have only "come from Kendrick's blog" in the sense that I read about the proposed deletion there. The fact that I have NOT tried to find out who you are, and couldn’t care less who you are, is proof that Kendrick’s alleged “canvassing” is not in play here and has, in fact, been ignored by everyone on here. All these contributors are here because they disagree with censorship, or because they believe strongly in Kendrick’s ideas, or because they support free medical discussion & debate of ideas. No-one is trying to find out who you are. I would also say, with all due respect, that you can't be crying "unethical" while you yourself are trying to remove a perfectly legitimate entry for a well-established and substantiated public figure simply because you disagree with his opinions. I'm afraid that is the very definition of unethical, and I'd like to think Wikipedia has some rules of its own on that one. Perhaps you have “never ever seen anything like this before” because you have never so blatantly tried to censor something before. Lastly, I’d just like to point out that you open your comment by saying “I never said this discussion should be kept private” and finish it by concluding “This page should be protected IMO and locked for only autoconfirmed users.” I think you’ve kind of said it right there. Pirate hamster (talk) 05:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Attention is called to this passage from WP:GAFD:
One exception to the principle of assume good faith concerns the use of sockpuppets. This tactic is commonly employed by vandals and bad-faith contributors who create multiple user accounts in an attempt to bias the decision process. A close variation is to enlist "meatpuppets", people from outside Wikipedia to "run in" (for example, if my article about a web forum is up for deletion and I post a call for other forum members to "help keep our website in Wikipedia"). Signs of these tactics are that a contributor's account was created after discussion began, that a contributor has few edits or that a contributor's other edits have been vandalism. Other Wikipedians will draw attention to such facts and may even recommend deletion simply because apparent sock- or meat-puppets piled in with "do not delete" or other similar comments.
So best you put a sock in it. EEng 09:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's your argument - we should delete author's entries if newspapers only talk about what they write? Do you feel if the papers had discussed his shoes, his weight or his sex life that would give him more validity? He's a medical writer, not Kim Kardashian.Pirate hamster (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. No coverage, no article. Period. EEng 09:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pirate hamster, please see Wikipedia's standards for inclusion for biographies. This is a policy-based discussion. Harassing or attempting to intimidate other editors won't affect the outcome of this discussion. Bradv🍁 06:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Kendrick does important work. We cannot make scientific progress if we try to delete ideas we don't agree with. Stifling debate is weak and silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Public Health Promotor (talk • contribs) 11:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC) — Public Health Promotor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete - Kendrick is a GP and doesn't have any background in lipidology, yet sells contrarian books about the lipid hypothesis, suggesting a missive multi-decade conspiracy. He uses well known conspiracy theorist tactics, such as cherry-picking, quote mining, misrepresentation of evidence, etc. E.g. He likes to state that, in studies, those with low cholesterol suffer more all cause mortality, but he fails to mention co-morbidity or reverse causation. He even made a ridiculous blog post stating that saturated fat cannot raise LDL cholesterol[1], despite nearly 400 metabolic ward studies proving this [2]. There is no mention of the meta-analysis of these metabolic ward studies in his blog post. Why? Because he likes to confuse, distract and sell books. He is a menace to society, suggesting people should eat an unhealthy diet, high in saturated fat, as well as refusing to take statins when prescribed. Swampf0etus (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2018/07/03/why-saturated-fat-cannot-raise-cholesterol-levels-ldl-levels/
  2. ^ https://www.bmj.com/content/314/7074/112.long
Of course, if the article were kept it would have to discuss the fact that Kendrick's theories are pseudoscientific; I suspect the many meatpuppets don't quite realise that. --bonadea contributions talk 13:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His opinion and the merits or dis-merits of his hypotheses are irreverent. He fails on notability, the article is a stub of a stub, and it's impossible to expand because there is no notable sourcing to be had. That being said this is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen on Wikipedia. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He is a co-signatory along with Sir Richard Thompson, President of the Royal College of Physicians and others, in a letter to the BMJ on statin prescribing. If he was a non-notable or a crank, he would not have been invited to join their august company. BMJ letter MartinFromWoodstock (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
His contributions to the debate are not what's on the table here. His general notability, as defined by longstanding Wikipedia policy, is what's being discussed. So far, no one has been able to show how Dr Kendrick meets GNG on his own merits. As I mentioned in my !vote below, he has been quoted in pieces about the issue, but has not yet - or at least no reference has been provided to the effect - done any research himself or led a research team that has had its findings published in a reliable source. Please keep the discussion on task, which is to say, please keep it on the subject of the good doctor's independent notability. StrikerforceTalk 15:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Edit StrikerforceTalk 16:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Exactly. This whole discussion is completely off the rails. Based on policy this article shouldn't be here. Signing a letter doesn't equal notability on Wikipedia, coverage in notable secondary sources does that. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have not found any references that point to studies conducted by him or researchers under his direction that support the claims to notability espoused by previous commentators. Nearly all references that I have found are pieces that merely quote him talking about other studies. To me, that doesn't meet "significant coverage [that] addresses the topic directly and in detail" (GNG). I respect the subject's right to have an opinion, as a medical professional, but I don't see how he is any different from any of the eighty or so GPs currently at work at the hospital down the street from me. StrikerforceTalk 15:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Strikerforce, what's different from all those other GPs is that Kendrick espouses a view that is completely contrary to mainstream medicine, and our article as it stands does a poor job of exposing that. I haven't decided yet whether we need to fix the article to provide better coverage, or to delete it entirely. I'm having trouble finding enough sources about the subject directly -- mostly just passing mentions and self-published sources, but regardless of how the AfD turns out, this article cannot stay in its current state. Bradv🍁 15:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of what I can find is promotional. I do not seem the requisite independent coverage. Natureium (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – after further research, I can't find enough coverage in independent reliable sources to write a balanced article, or even to source the information that's there now. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NAUTHOR. Bradv🍁 16:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On reliable sources,, pubmed lists Malcolm Kendrick's 11 papers (co-author and sole author) in well known peer-reviewed journals, and his 3 books (plus contributions to two other books) are on sale on the major bookseller's websites. These things are very easily checked, and clearly show his research credentials. I cannot reconcile the last few 'delete' statements with the clear information at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=malcolm+kendrick. Please explain. He is clearly nothing like the "eighty or so GPs currently at work at the hospital down the street".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Malcolm_Kendrick&oldid=871995374"