Who Deserves To Be A Wikipedia Article?: The Deletion of Dr. Malcolm Kendrick

Scottish primary care physician and author of The Great Cholesterol Con Dr. Macolm Kendrick began his blog post yesterday with these words:

I thought I should tell you that I am about to be deleted from Wikipedia. Someone sent me a message to this effect. It seems that someone from Manchester entitled User:Skeptic from Britain has decided that I am a quack and my presence should be removed from the historical record.

Although I don’t agree with Kendrick’s statin denialism I do find him an informative, entertaining and different voice in the field of atherogenesis and it didn’t seem right that he should be deleted from Wikipedia.

Apparently, articles on Wikipedia can be proposed for deletion and at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Malcolm Kendrick there is an ongoing battle between the forces fighting for deletion of kendrick those fighting for maintenance of his Wikipedia entry.

This wikipedia comment is what initiated the deletion proposition:

Malcolm Kendrick is a fringe figure who agues(sic) 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 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)

I have no idea what are valid criteria are for a human becoming an article on Wikipedia (in fact I’ve often thought that I should have an article) but none of the “Skeptic from Britain’s” arguments would sway me to delete Kendrick’s article.

Wikipedically Yours,


6 thoughts on “Who Deserves To Be A Wikipedia Article?: The Deletion of Dr. Malcolm Kendrick”

  1. There was another instance of this just a couple months ago when it was noticed that Donna Strickland, the first female physics Nobel winner in 55 years, was noticed to not have a Wikipedia page, having been deemed too insignificant by the Wikipedia site manager. Slightly different circumstances, but I’m with you. I mean, hello: Alex Jones the conspiracy theorist—and I have other words I’d use to describe him—has a Wikipedia page, for heaven’s sake. If he’s not “fringe,” I don’t know who is.

  2. it’s refreshing to see someone reasonably disagree with Dr. K. There is indeed hope for the world. The Dr. K story isn’t over yet and it’s been what? 15 days?

  3. Malcolm Kendrick is now on Rationalwiki


    Note that Kendrick is on the advice board of a pseudoscientific “Institute for Natural Healing”. This institute sells a cancer cure fraud scheme known as the “Cancer Survival System”, it promises “The goopy food ingredient that kills 93% of cancer cells in only 48 hours”, it also promises a “natural compound” that cures cancer. But does not describe what this compound is. The institute charges 149$ for this “cure”. Kendrick is supportive of this sort of thing. The charges of quackery are therefore justified.

  4. How is it that he isn’t notable enough for Wikipedia? Malcolm Kendrick is a well known public figure and public intellectual, a doctor who has practiced for a long time, is a researcher who has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and an author with several popular books. He is referenced by many authors, often about the issue of statins. His views are supported by other researchers and healthcare professionals. In fact, his views are in line with what is regularly published in the peer-reviewed journal BMJ, a British medical journal that is one of the most prestigious in the world.

  5. If for no other reason that his writing of “Doctoring Data’ – which explains the devious difference between ‘Relative Risk %’ and ‘Absolute Risk’.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.