Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Campbell (YouTuber)

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.

John Campbell (YouTuber)

John Campbell (YouTuber) (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)

Users have suggested we should not have what is (in effect) an attack page, based on poor sourcing.

I have some sympathy with this, as he does seem to be mainly notable for his Covid "misinformation" (as RS has called it). I am unsure myself he is all that notable. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

• I think the article could be improved but if we can't reach consensus on the reliability of all the sources, then I would agree with deleting.Michael Martinez (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is what
    wP:rsn is for. Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Again, I'm not going to try to get BBC blocked on Wikipedia over 1 misleading article. I hope we can agree to keep the discussion HERE focused on the proposal. Michael Martinez (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • So then you accept its an RS. So this should be the end of it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't put words into my mouth. Any reliable source can publish content that is unacceptable to Wikipedia. But THIS discussion is not about which sources are appropriate. It's about whether to delete the page. Michael Martinez (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Source reliability is not absolute. A source can be reliable for one (or many) uses, and then not for another. When it comes to medical info, we need to look at
          WP:MEDRS. Jehochman ^Talk 12:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • The news article [cited as a source] in dispute, Jonathan, is factually incorrect. There's no Wikipedia policy that's going to allow it. Michael Martinez (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • See
              WP:RS -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 12:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • The BBC are reliable. The article was written by the BBC's own specialist health disinformation reporter. You've been repeatedly told to take your claim of unreliability to
                WP:RSN and have consistently failed to do so. We don't allow editors to dismiss a clearly reliable reference based on nothing more than arm waving and allusions to people on Twitter claiming an article is wrong. FDW777 (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
                ]

                "The article was written by the BBC's own specialist health disinformation reporter" who misrepresented the video's content, does not provide a source for her statement, and whose statement is contradicted by the older Politifact article that uses the video to debunk the Jimmy Dore video. Michael Martinez (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

              • Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
                • "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."
                • "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)."
                • "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors."
                • "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis."
              • Per Wikipedia:Verifiability
                • "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."
                • "Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). Articles should be based on thorough research of sources. All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them. If there is a disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution: 'John Smith argues X, while Paul Jones maintains Y,' followed by an inline citation. Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what reliable sources say."
              • The Politifact article directly contradicts the BBC article. Michael Martinez (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

                I see no contradiction between the BBC and Politifact. I also see four claims about Campbell in the BBC article, all of which appear to be true.

                • Campbell is a retired nurse educator with a huge following on YouTube.

                True.

                • Campbell released a video on 20 January.

                True.

                • Campbell said the 17,000 figure was a "huge story" and suggested COVID deaths were "much lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating"

                True.

                • Said video was seen over 1.5 million times and shared by Tory MP David Davis.

                True.

                Which of the those are wrong, misleading or whatever else you want to claim? FDW777 (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

                • "and suggested COVID deaths were 'much lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating'"
                • That's the untrue part of the BBC article. The Polifact article contradicts this point, and affirms what Dr. Campbell said in the video. Michael Martinez (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Are you suggesting Campbell never said "much lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating". Considering the entrie thrust of the Politifact article is that death totals from COVID-19 in England have not been overstated, you're going to have to actually explain exactly which sentence in the Politifact article contradicts which sentence in the BBC article.FDW777 (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I provided a fuller quote on the Talk page for the Campbell article. The BBC partial quotation is just bad journalism. Anyone can watch the video to learn what he really says. Michael Martinez (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Ah, back to that old chestnut. We don't need to watch Campbell's videos for any reason, that's not how things work. FDW777 (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                        • As I pointed out in the comments elsewhere on this page, Wikipedia policy does provide guidelines for when to look at videos that are the subject of content on Wikipedia. And I strongly recommend that anyone contributing to any article on Wikipedia about YouTubers be willing to watch any videos whose content isn't agreed upon by the "reliable sources" (as is the case with this one). That is part of the process Wikipedia wants everyone to follow in determining whether a source is appropriate. Michael Martinez (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirm me for DELETE. I think based on the table provided by JoelleJay and the Coatracking argument that this article is probably not salvageable. Given the argumentative defenses of challenged edits, it will be virtually impossible to reach consensus to resolve the issues. Wikipedia cannot be made into a comprehensive record of all the people who promote questionable or debunked treatments regardless of their academic and professional credentials. If we keep this article we'll have to keep every other article that is similarly problematic. Michael Martinez (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to major, reliable sources mentioning him in relation to COVID misinformation, for which he is most notable. I would support a significant trimming down to only the most notable topics (I expect this one), with any necessary BLP edits made. The idea that deletion is the correct course of action (rather than addressing BLP or DUE concerns and trimming the article) comes across as a
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT without a stronger policy-based argument. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Actualy I am unsure he is notable, but not because I do not like it, but because apart from covid misinformation he is a bit of a nobody. Thus it might be best to merge it with covid misinformation. Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is your/the evidence to show Dr. Campbell is part of Covid misinformation. Dr. Campbell has produced hundreds of videos, throughout the pandemic, using reference material from many renowned sources such as BMJ, ONS, CDC etc. The content of all his videos is support by links direct to the source. Edwardsp1916 (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Edwardsp1916, please don't be silly--and this is not the place for that discussion. Take it to the article talk page, if you must. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have now viewed almost all of his YouTube videos and note that he states statistics from ONS (office of national statistics) and many other UK government sources. I have yet to find anything that might qualify as 'misinformation' in relation to covid-19 and gives opinion that he backs up with reference to stats that can be viewed publicly. If anything the covid 'Misinformation' is false and without merit and appears nothing more than a jab at his YouTube success. I have tried to follow the sources libelled against his alleged 'Misinformation' and have so far found them nothing more than an alternative view with poor sourcing. The negative detail of the man is misleading and without basis and many find his videos helpful. Jasper141254 (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure there has been significant coverage of him in the media. Some of the citations in the article seem to mention him in passing. The article as it stands now also seems to violate the original research guideline, as it presents a very biased and misleading picture of the man. While he's made some controversial statements about ivermectin, by most accounts (including UNICEF, per a citation in his article) he's actually quite a reliable source of information about the pandemic. But it's not like the media seek him out as an expert commentator or write a lot of stories about him. Michael Martinez (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those same concerns jump out to me as well with the article today, and do need to be cleaned up. Particularly the change in reactions to his videos, seemingly related to claims about Ivermectin and cause of death that was considered misinformation. But cleanup attempts should come before AfD, and that's the source of my opposition. If cleanup leaves only a very small, non-notable stub then I would be much more in favor of deletion. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • THis is not the place to discuss article content. Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the reliable sources in the article. His covid misinformation is what makes him notable for wikipedia -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It takes one hit song for a K-pop artist to be notable, and Campbell certainly had more than one hit song, so to speak: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. (And don't go "DM and NYP aren't great sources"--true, they aren't, but they certainly indicate here how notable the man is.) Drmies (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've now looked at a second video Freedom of information discussion about him claiming that only 17,000 have died in the UK of covid and he really doesn't say that. I don't know what is going on here, but we have an individual with no reliable sources about who he is (see the sources for his degrees) and who is mentioned in several controversies concerning covid. So, I still think we have a non-notable person with some coatracking going on in the article and maybe by some of the "reliable" sources. I think we need to consider carefully the BLP issues going on here. I am One of Many (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Per the BBC (who are very much reliable) Campbell described the figures as a "huge story" and suggested Covid deaths were "much lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating". Your opinion of what he said is completely irrelevant. This seemes to be a consistent running theme at the moment, everyone popping up with their opinion of what Campbell actually meant. Those opinions are worthless here, they have no bearing on content. FDW777 (talk) 09:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: this is
  not a forum. We are not here to discuss the merits of the subject--we are here only to determine if the subject meets our guidelines for notability. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Between the Guardian, the BBC and the British Medical Journal, there's enough to argue for notability. That coverage of him has said negative things is not our fault.
  talk) 18:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• To say that Dr Campbell presents misinformation might be considered, in itself, misinformation and an attack on the man’s integrity. If Wikipedia is of the opinion that he is of no importance it would be better to delete the entire entry than to misrepresent him.

  B Asmall

  Retired Health Professional 95.144.72.184 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It "might be considered", but it isn't. We decide whether to keep or delete articles based on policy, not hurt feelings.
    talk) 19:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete This is a very unusual case. While there are some reliable sources, they only focus on a few of his videos and not him as an individual. Other than being discussed as one of many involved in several controversies, the only claim to notability is having over a million youtube subscribers, which does not meet our criteria for notability. I also decided to watch one of these videos Heart risk after vaccines and he only appears to be advocating for more research, which raises to my mind whether we also have a larger BLP issue going on here. To me, this article is about a non-notable person that is serving as a
  WP:COATRACK for other issues.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Your wikipedia page is incorrect about John. He is very analytical about all facets of COVID, truly trying to seek the truth. He shares the raw data from various governmental agencies, discusses trends, makes predictions of trends. He is thoughtful, concerned, and re-assuring. He strongly believes and promotes vaccination and discusses the underlying reasons for why vaccination works. He discusses the importance of being vaccinated before getting COVID, as you are much more likely to have a mild case. He also discusses natural immunity, or hybrid immunity, something the CDC also agrees with. He did state that natural immunity should work earlier than the CDC based on the Israeli studies, but again fact based. He does have questions about Ivermectic. There are a lot of questions frankly about Ivermectin, more of which is coming out with the disclosure of the Pfizer documents. Dr Campbell is one of the best sources of real data, calm analysis available. The wikipedia page should be lauding his efforts, not impugning his reputation. 24.5.178.10 (talk) 07:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur absolutely. The videos on you tube always give his references, always correct any misapprehensions/inaccuracies and always make sure that his watchers are not taking anything he says as 'medical advice' but refers people to their own doctors. The BBC reporting of his video on covid deaths solely from covid was a complete nonsense from someone who had patently not watched, listened to or understood his video. Wikipedia should not fall into the same trap. 2A00:23C6:1381:2D01:54E2:1A1E:8824:4B03 (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The BBC's Rachel Schraer is far more qualified than Campbell's Kool-Aid drinkers to understand what Campbell meant. FDW777 (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cease name calling now. See warning. Uncle G (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        Nonsense. 2A00:23C6:1381:2D01:6562:5D09:31EB:2B12 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        What are Rachel Schraer's qualifications beyond "journalist?" Dr. Campbell has a doctorate degree in nursing and was a practicing nurse for 4 decades. How is a journalist remotely qualified to ensure medical statements are fact or fiction? Panda118 (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        John Campbell has a doctorate degree in nursing education. He was not a practicing nurse for 4 decades according to his own words his only work as a nurse is from April 2016 to present. What are *his* qualifications in regard to COVID-19? Assuming you had read the BBC article, you might have picked up that the Office of National Statistics, whose statistics Cambell used to make his misleading claims in the first place, are the ones that were forced to issue the refutation of the misinformation. FDW777 (talk) 08:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • THis is my concern about notability. Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, the
      WP:COATRACK is a solid concern. I'd still prefer to see an attempt to clean that up prior to AfD. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Much of what is written about Dr. Campbell is incorrect. The so-called misinformation is largely misquoting him. If you watch any video he puts out, there are reliable sources for what he is saying. (Removed. Uncle G (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)) There are no notes to when he said the specific things labeled as misleading. A true statement would have the video reference. Panda118 (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Citing sources doesn't prevent one from either misrepresenting or

  WP:PRIMARY sources is typically avoided here for the same reason: to prevent people from taking one a quote out of context. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep Clearly notable. Campbell chose to promote COVID-19 misinformation, so Wikipedia covers that (providing reliable references exist, which they do). Nobody forced him to cover certain topics. Nobody forced him to cover those topics in the way he did. He's made his choices. FDW777 (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where exactly is the covid-19 misinformation? I have looked carefully at all relevant videos and can find no evidence of this. Office of national Statistics and Zoe are the main sources of information both approved and use by UK government . Jasper141254 (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Someone who gets in the news (for whatever reason) a few times I would not class a notable person. People get in the news for all kinds of reasons and then never get heard of again. Having a medium sized YouTube Channel is also not notable. The topic (or more current event) that John largely covers is also very time limited in that pandemics are only major issues for 2-3 years historically and everyone will lose interest in the topic at that point, that will mean John will really become completely irrelevant quite quickly and people completely forgetting about him at such point. This Wikipedia article on him therefore has no longevity either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottL88 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per an implied
  WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. This is a marginal case and the biography is probably the wrong place to hash out a difference between information and dis/mis-information. I have no doubt that some of his work may warrant inclusion at Wikipedia, but a biography seems the wrong place to do this. jps (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Campbell is a public figure, deliberately so by his own choosing. He is not a non-public figure. FDW777 (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, see also the supplemental explanation
      WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE says the user's request may (not should) lead to deletion. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • I did say it was a marginal case. I am inclined to the position that YouTube self-promotion is overplayed as evidence for public figuredom at Wikiepdia. Obviously, this is swimming a bit against the tide, but the comparative lack of sources that detail any biographical information about this person strikes me as fairly good evidence for my position. jps (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being a public figure and BLP notability are somewhat orthogonal concepts. Having a 1M+ subscriber YouTube channel isn't necessarily notable in-and-of-itself (on a quick look, this threshold seems closer to the 5M+ range), but a person who engages in public communication on a regular basis with a large audience is not a "low-profile individual" for the purposes of policy application in deference to those who seek to avoid public attention. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I beg to differ as a principle since there are certainly ways to engage with a large audience and still be a low-profile individual these days when it is possible for just about anyone to go viral in Andy-Warhol-esque fashion. Wikipedia seems to be biased in its coverage towards the internet-famous in ways that make for problematic content curation, in my estimation. The sources in this article say hardly anything about the biography of John Campbell because that's not really what the sources are interested in. The controversy may be notable, but the person is
          not. Again, in my estimation. jps (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • I agree in principle, well-known individuals can take efforts to remain low-profile, such as pseudonymity, not sharing their own face, etc; see
            WP:BLP1E. In the case of the latter, I'm not certain he meets both criteria 1 and 2. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • I suppose one must ask if the pandemic is a single event. But as I understand it, he's received minor media coverage (no interviews, not the focus of any major media stories) for covering unreliable ivermectin claims, something about vaccines and heart problems (I'm just looking at the Wikipedia article), for reading the Pfizer document about adverse events, and for reading government statistics about death certificates. So if those are all separate events per Wikipedia, then I'd agree with you on criterion 1.Michael Martinez (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • jps, in addition to the points above about whether Campbell is a non-public figure, I don't think we can infer that Campbell has requested deletion. In the only relevant video that I'm aware of, he criticizes the page and calls it "quite funny", but stops well short of any mention of deletion. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did say the request was "implied". I think he may not appreciate that deletion could be a preferable option. If you think I'm reading too much into the whole thing, that's fine. jps (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • My bad! I was "implying" a question when I should have asked it explicitly. What has Campbell said to imply that he is requesting deletion? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe that his directive to his audience to engage with this website can be interpreted as such. "I am dissatisfied with this article about me" is often interpreted by me as "request you delete it". It is certainly also possible interpret such requests as "please change the wording to my liking", but I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. jps (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

          Any difrective was in your imagination! 2A00:23C6:1381:2D01:F083:FC98:B5C8:A6E5 (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep BLPREQUESTDELETE would only really apply in the case of non-public figures. Sources are clearly sufficient to establish notability, and also make it clear that this is a highly public figure.
  WP:LOWPROFILE does not seem to apply. They seem to meet all of the definition of a high profile individual. --Jayron32 15:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• It does not matter what Mr Cambpell thinks, nor should it inform our choice of what we do. Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - What makes this so difficult is the intersection of
  WP:FRINGE, combined with someone who has received coverage for spreading misinformation as well as for being a useful science communicator. The early coverage is generally positive, and most of his videos do not, from what I can tell, spread misinformation. this early story includes a pretty standard instructional video about hand-washing and talks about how he was concerned governments weren't being proactive enough. He has repeated/spread some bogus claims, however, especially regarding ivermectin, and those have been called out on the various fact-checking sites. I'm inclined to think the subject is notable based on the sources I've seen. The current version of the article seems to weigh the fact-checking sources much more heavily than the rest, but that can be fixed by editing rather than deletion (and by "fixed" I don't mean we should remove the fact that he's spread this stuff, but that the rest of the article should be built up and possible the misinformation trimmed slightly). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Coverage of him seems marginally significant, and I think he probably merits an article even if it means trimming down per DUE.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
news.com.au	? Some secondary commentary, but also a lot of quotes (not independent)	reprint of New York Post article		✘ No
his YouTube channel			?	✘ No
NewsHub			Non-significant discussion of the sources behind some of his claims, plus a couple brief mentions	✘ No
Health Feedback (Pfizer article)			Non-significant discussion of the sources behind some of his claims, plus a brief mention of his videos	✘ No
Fact Check			Brief blurb on his background and 3-sentence overview of one of his videos	✘ No
PolitiFact		?	Non-trivial coverage of one of his videos, but not of him	✘ No
Connect Magazine	Some kind of alumni newsletter from U of Cumbria			✘ No
Newsroom	? Very little independent commentary on him, most of the article is just interview quotes about COVID		? Little coverage of him, as opposed to quotes of things he's said about COVID	? Unknown
Review of a book			? Can't access full text	? Unknown
Insider		? Unclear whether this is RS		? Unknown
News & Star	? Mostly quotes from him/his videos, little independent commentary on him by the author		Mostly quotes from him/his videos, little coverage of him	✘ No
UNICEF			Trivial mention	✘ No
Social Science in Action	Identical to UNICEF source	?		✘ No
Westmorland Gazette	Identical to News & Star article	?	?	✘ No
Health Feedback (ivermectin article)			? Mostly commentary on claims in some of his videos, but the extent of focus is non-trivial	? Unknown
BBC			Brief mention	✘ No
The Times			? Can't access full text	? Unknown
The Guardian			Passing mention	✘ No
More or Less BBC podcast	?		?	? Unknown
Mirror	Almost entirely quotes from him		Just a brief blurb on his background	✘ No
NY Post	? Half of it is quotes from him		Just two sentences on him	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• JoelleJay (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a huge stretch to argue that there is significant coverage of Dr. Campbell. There certainly is no overlap between "significant coverage" and what he is supposedly notable for, which is occasional misleading information. I am One of Many (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can see that there is little dedicated SIGCOV / RS coverage per Joelle's analysis above. For POV; Campbells content started out quite reasonable, middle of the road medical advice, however since later 2020 there has been a noticeable change in content. (Off-topic material removed. You were warned. Sources, the article, and the application Wikipedia policies only. No discussion of COVID-19 topics. Uncle G (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)) He is, as such, almost certainly notable (due to coverage by the BBC, and retweeting by David Davis (British politician)) for the purposes of inclusion in other Covid19 type articles relating to conspiracy theories and misinformation regardless of whether or not all his information is misleading. Koncorde (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The majority of people editing this article and writing other articles about Dr John Campbell have not watched even a small fraction of the literally hundreds of hours of his YouTube videos, so whatever opinions they have are not based on a solid knowledge of Dr Campbell's work. Writing a balanced and truthful biography would take a huge amount of effort which I dont think any wiki editors are likely to take on, perhaps if a proper biography on him is published in the future that might be the point at which to revisit this. Paraphrased (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a
    WP:PAG reason for suggesting that editing about a person publishing content (YouTube personality, author, pundit, journalist, etc) requires the editors to have directly consumed content by the creator? The videos themselves aren't typically considered reliable sources, and editing should mirror RS coverage rather than being merely a summary of their content. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I'm not trying to answer for @Paraphrased but the Wikipedia video links policy is much less absolute than many people appear to think it is. Per Wikipedia:Video_links these are parts of the policy that address videos uploaded to Wikipedia, but which I feel are relevant to the discussion about the content of the Dr. Campbell video where he reads the government data about death certificates.
      • "There is no blanket ban on linking to user-submitted video sites through external links or when citing sources. However, such links must abide by various policies and guidelines. Links should be carefully and individually evaluated for inclusion."
    • -> I am not proposing that any of Dr. Campbell's videos necessarily be used as sources for the article about him. It already links to his YouTube channel. But in terms of ascertaining the verifiability and accuracy of any news story about any given video, the video itself is the only truly reliable source of information.
      • "...Self-published videos may be used as sources of information about their creator if they meet the requirements seen at restrictions on using self-published sources. The community sometimes accepts videos from the official YouTube channels of subjects, but this is not a guarantee of approval with content being unduly self-serving being just one concern."
      • "... A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge..."
    • From the "In the External links section of an article" section of that policy:
      • "Links to user-submitted video sites must abide by Wikipedia's External links guidelines (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). For example: Videos often contain less information than alternative websites or the Wikipedia article itself. This concern limits use of many videos according to ELNO#1."
    • In this case, the video is the only source of information that can be used to verify the accuracy of any news articles discussing it.
    • From "In A Nutshell" at the top of the page:
    • "This page in a nutshell: Videos on user-submitted sites can sometimes be used as references or external links, but copyright infringement and unreliability will rule out the use of many of these videos."
    • So, there is no justification for disqualifying the video out-of-hand as a reference for discussions about the accuracy and reliability of any news article that mentions it (in passing with respect to this specific video). There are no transcripts online of which I am aware. And as the video itself contradicts the BBC article's unsourced assertions, it would be compliant within this policy supplement's guideline to reference the video directly. Michael Martinez (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @
        WP:OR
        issues. Specifically, the neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim criteria seems like it could reasonably apply to many of the places where primary sourcing to Campbell's YouTube is suggested. Above debate about whether the generally-reliable BBC misquoted a video, for instance.
      • This is the context of my concern with Paraphrased suggesting that editors who have not watched even a small fraction... of his YouTube videos are unable to edit the article capably. I'd expect that those who do watch the videos would provide context in situations where a direct primary sourcing would be helpful, with other editors being able to weigh in on their provided context even without being a follower of Campbell's videos. This suggested editing criteria would be a de facto "only those who agree with Campbell can edit" restriction. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • If editors are unwilling to verify the sources they want to cite in any article - but just blindly trust that a major news site never gets anything wrong - that's a problem. Wikipedia policy pages clearly stipulate they don't want those kinds of contributions. It's not good enough that an article was published by the Washington Post, CNN, or the BBC. It must also be true and verifiable. And Wikipedia editors must make contributions that uphold that standard. Michael Martinez (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • If that is indeed the suggestion (trust, but verify), I'm more inclined to agree. Though I'd suggest that a user quoting the relevant section of a video in the talk page discussion (rather than linking with timestamp for every editor to watch) is roughly equivalent. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • This article is very abnormal in my Wikipedia experience. And it's not about the arguments over sources. The apparent Coatracking makes me wonder just how useful the article would be if everything detailing the controversies were condensed to more appropriate NPOV language. I think moving that section to another page covering these controversies would better serve Wikipedia's audience. Michael Martinez (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The major problem with this article is its selectivity and lack of nuance. (Off-topic material removed. You were warned. Loss of all editing privileges will occur the next time with no further warnings. Discuss the article, how Wikipedia deletion policy and other policies apply, and the provenances and depths of sources only. Uncle G (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)) This article clearly defames Dr. Campbell and lacks the nuance I expect from Wikipedia articles. I don’t think it is salvageable. QuakerShan (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are at least two in-depth references about him in the article currently: Retired doctor becomes YouTube sensation for coronavirus videos". news.com.au. March 15, 2020. and Harris, Margot (March 16, 2020). "An emergency nurse went viral on YouTube for his videos on the coronavirus, bringing in millions of views on his health and science lectures". Insider. Retrieved December 21, 2021.. There's probably more, but that's the first two articles I looked at. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to point out that some of the delete !votes, such as by QuakerShan and Paraphrased, immediately above my !vote, are supporting delete because they are unhappy with the current article's approach to the subject. That's not a valid argument for deletion, rather it is an argument for improvement of the article, if their concerns are valid. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There's a notable topic here. Coverage by The Times, The Guardian, the BBC, the BMJ and UNICEF shows that. Whereas Campbell has earning plaudits in social media, antivax and COVID-denial sources (e.g.[6]) none of those are usable on Wikipedia. Instead the reaction in reliable non-fringe sources and from actual scientists tends to be in reaction to the "dangerous" misinformation. Thus the article is as it is, because NPOV requires us to reflect decent sources, and they are pretty much uniformly negative. Maybe one way to "disappear" the article would be to argue that it's not suitable as a biography as such, but the misinformation content would be better merged in elsewhere. It already features in
  talk) 16:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Numerous people (including me) have challenged the article's point of view. It clearly doesn't represent Dr. Campbell's career and work. It's summarizing reactions to how his videos have both shared and been used by people spreading misinformation, without distinguishing between the intentions behind his videos and the misuse. You keep implying that sites consdidered to be Reliable Sources are Infallible Sources, and Wikipedia policy doesn't recognize that kind of infallibility. The BBC article essentially repeats gossip without properly sourcing its allegation (which is only a minor point in a longer article about other people). The Politifact article cites the same information Dr. Campbell read in his video, makes the same points he did, and only rebuts the Jimmy Dore video. That is clear evidence that the BBC article re-articulates the Campbell video; and as it doesn't offer any justification for that, it has attracted a lot of objection and criticism. Your only response has been to blandly refer to RS without addressing the specific objections based on that policy. If you and other contributors are unwilling to reach consensus on these points, the article cannot be allowed to stand as it violates Wikipedia's NPOV and Reliable Sources policies. Michael Martinez (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever article exists is bound to have
      talk) 17:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • No one is arguing "I know better than RS". You keep misrepresenting what people are saying as part of a stonewalling campaign to preserve an edit (a single edit, I might add) that misinforms Wikipedia readers. Wikipedia is not to be used to spread misinformation. If you and the 2-3 other major contributors who keep using RS as a shield to protect bad edits refuse to bow to consensus, this article cannot be salvaged without a long, protracted campaign that must step carefully to avoid canvassing and other policies. Dr. Campbell isn't notable enough for that kind of attention. This article isn't worth preserving if it's not going to be done right. Michael Martinez (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is completely inappropriate, and I hope an admin will sweep up.
          talk) 17:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Seconded. Koncorde (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your constant accusations are inappropriate and have no place in a discussion about an article or an AFD proposal. I hope YOU stop. Michael Martinez (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This is not the place to discuss user conduct, and users need to lay down the
  WP:BLUDGEON. STFU and let others have their say. everyone knows what we think. Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Per Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process
  • "Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view. A person replies to almost every "!vote" or comment, arguing against that particular person's point of view. "
  • I don't see where anyone has dominated the conversation here. Uncle_G has been moderating the discussion and these off-topic accusations just make his job harder.
  • Also from the policy: "To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil, and should be avoided."
  • Please stop. Michael Martinez (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Without taking sides here, do not make this about either
  Alexbrn's behaviours. You're both commenting on behaviour. You've got a disagreement about a specific source. Stick to that. If it helps to focus, pretend that you're explaining to Drmies above why you think that xyr first hyperlinked source is/is not a problem, or to JoelleJay why you agree/disagree with the row in xyr source assessment table, and not arguing about each other's arguments. Uncle G (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep because the subject has voluntarily made himself notable. Posting numerous high-view-count videos and receiving multiple, independent news appearances is sufficient to establish notability. Wikipedia's BLP policy does not protect subjects from criticism sourced to reliable publications. Poorly sourced criticisms may be removed on sight. Jehochman ^Talk 23:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we please stop discussing article content or sourcing here, this is just about is he notable, nothing else. Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, sourcing is the only way we know if he is notable. Which source have written about him, and how much depth they have gone into writing about him, are really the alpha and omega of notability. See
    WP:42, etc. --Jayron32 16:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Right, but once the discussion goes to which source to use, we've acknowledged notability and are now in the realm of content disagreement. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is what is taking over this AFD, and should stop. This is not the place for content disputes. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep! He has more than 2 millions subscribers, so he has to be notable! --StellarNerd (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:N, upon which most convincing Keep rationales are based. Hope this helps. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 01:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep. The Newsroom, Insider, and HealthFeedback Ivermectin sources are reliable and provide significant coverage of Campbell and his work. I gave some though to the reasonable
  WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE
  argument, but I've watched the video in which Campbell discusses the article about him. He describes it as laughable and criticizes it, but stops well short of requesting deletion. If we're going to start deleting articles because the subjects criticize them, I'd prefer there to be centralized consensus on the matter.

So here's the problem with the demand that everyone place blind faith in "reliable sources". The author of the BBC article says "there is one brief mention of Dr Campbell's video as a place where the 17k figure saw an uptick. No accusation of wrong-doing. No suggestion I'm fact-checking him" Rachel Schraer Tweet, 2022-02-07.

But the Wikipedia article treats that mention as an accusation of wrong-doing (Jan 25 edit: "Campbell posted a YouTube video in which he cited figures from the UK's Office of National Statistics (ONS) suggesting they showed deaths from COVID-19 were 'much lower than mainstream media seems to have been intimating' and concentrated on a figure of 17,371 death certificates where only COVID-19 was recorded as a cause of death. Within a few days the video had been viewed over 1.5 million times.") That January 25 edit also ended with "Campbell's video was relayed by American comedian Jimmy Dore, who used it to claim that COVID deaths had been undereported and that it proved the public had been the victim of a 'scaremongering' campaign." This sentence accurately summarized the January 22 Politifact article I summarized here per request. However, that sentence was subsequently removed and the Politifact article was re-attached as a source for the 2nd paragraph in the article summary: "Campbell has claimed that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted...[7]" - which completely contradicts what the Politifact article claims. But, in mid-March ...

... The false claim alleged to the Politifact article was used as a justification to maintain the prevarication about what the Politifact article actually says: "As Campbell has claimed they have been inflated we can not imply this may be the case, unless RS explicitly say it is the case. So I think we need to take care how we word it to not give the impression Campbell's claim is supported by RS."

Hence, urging the closer to "discount arguments based on editors' disagreement with the reliable sources" is disingenuous and essentially asks that the whole problem that led to this AFD be left unresolved.

Maybe the AFD is the wrong solution - but unless all the people voting "Keep" are willing to help improve the article (and that includes addressing the alleged Coatracking, not just these carefully managed citations), then I infer from reading the Talk page's archives and the latest version there is a risk that whenever any 1 person complains about the problem (or some similar problem), a call for help will be placed on a noticeboard, leading to an ambush from like-minded editors who follow the noticeboard.

Based on the above manipulations, it's clear this article violates NPOV, verifiability, and original research which are all proscribed in the Biographies of Living Persons policy].

There's no way this article can be properly maintained and improved in the current situation. Without a viable alternative (such as someone doing a full rewrite ASAP), the closing decision absolutely MUST take into consideration just how much damage has been done both to this one article and to Wikipedia's reputation (vis-a-vis the dozens of complaints and attempts to fix the editing that were reverted) over the past few months. Michael Martinez (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to rehash the discussion you closed at Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)/Archive 4#Politifact versus BBC. Your refusal to drop the stick over this is becoming disruptive. You have been repeatedly told if you want to challenge the reliability of the BBC article the correct venue is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Should you once more fail to do this, I will be taking this matter to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement since you are aware of discretionary sanctions. FDW777 (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The admins have the diffs now. They can see what's going on for themselves, such as reversions like this and this. Is this an article about Jimmy Dore or is it an article about John Campbell? So, go ahead. Take the matter to enforcement. I have plenty of diffs to share. Michael Martinez (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this whole mess a few days ago. I was amazed to see that what was written in the article about Campbell didn't match the sources as you point out and that other than the coatrack of misleading claims made in the article about Campbell, there is no basis for his notability. I am One of Many (talk) 17:28, 6 April 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.