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 delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Hawkins[edit]

David R. Hawkins (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)

Not one independent RS. Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no improvement from (how many?) years ago.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did this not open up a new AFD?Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, possibly speedily depending on whether the claim to notability is deemed credible. @Slatersteven: The Page Curation tool is regrettably not programmed to handle second and subsequent AfD nominations, so your attempt to nominate using the tool appended to the first discussion and linked to it rather than creating a new one. This is far from the first time I've seen it happen. --Finngall ^talk 20:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to update the tool then.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, His work as an author and in the field of Orthomolecular Psychiatry makes him notable. See updates to page. Millandhouse33 (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Just noting that Millandhouse33 is the page creator. -- Netoholic @ 01:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. No indication of importance. --Tataral (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. His book "Power vs Force" does seem to be reasonably well known and influential. See for example [1], [2], [3], [4]. Polyharrisson (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically that means (not sure its true) that his book is notable, not him.Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support making the article about the book instead of him.Polyharrisson (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are now sufficnent grounds for a page about the man. Millandhouse33 (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly suggest that you reconsider this course. Sources for the book are likely to be as unreliable (WP:FRINGE) as for the author. -- Netoholic @ 01:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is an assumption, but I am none to impressed so far with the sources provided.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Speedy delete per WP:G4 unless someone can show where recreation was discussed ahead of time. -- Netoholic @ 01:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G4 does not apply here as this page is not an identical copy or substantially identical to a previous one. Millandhouse33 (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Didn't meet notability standards the first two times, still doesn't now. While his book may meet notability standards I'm still not entirely sure. best, GPL93 (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- I’m sorry, I’m feeling a little confused here. I hear the !votes for deletion saying the book meets the guidelines for meeting notability and inclusion here at Wikipedia, but the author of the book does not. Is it only me, but is there a certain disconnect there. If not for the author there is no book and viscera without out a book there cannot be an author. If one is notable, both are notable. Again, just my thoughts, thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is, it is also true, (see The Death Guard, the novel is notable, the author is not.).Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like WP:INHERITED, Shoessss. How do you reconcile your position with our guidelines on the matter? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. He's been deleted twice, and nothing has changed since the last deletion. And while it may seem confusing to some, it is possible for a book to be notable, and yet not the author. Just like it's possible for a film to be notable, and the star (or director, or screenwriter) of that film not be notable, if that is their only notable work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

books and films are different. Films have a diffuse responsibility--normally the director is considered chiefly responsible, but insome case it might be the star or the screenwriter, etc...The only potentially notable person in connection with a book is usually the author -- though in this instance there are two authors, and WorldCat describes them as just editors: " "edited by David Hawkins and Linus Pauling." DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worldcat clearly lists Hawkins as the author of Orthomolecular psychiatry Millandhouse33 (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, according to the article some of Hawkin's books are bestsellers, is this correct? only a couple are held by libraries in any numbers ie. Orthomolecular Psychiatry (this was jointly authored by Linus Pauling hence the high number?) in around 440 libraries, Letting Go in 150 libraries, editors may say he ticks the 1st part of no. 3 of WP:AUTHOR (works well known), but where are the reviews in reliable sources? btw, The Skeptic's Dictionary does have a quite a large piece on him (here). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to confirm"best-seller" --at least, I was able to determine that none of his books was on a New York Times bestseller list, which is the usual standard. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the libraries comment, Power vs Force is in 560 libraries, that site doesn't include Korea where he has sold the most copies. Millandhouse33 (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

apologies for not including PvF library nos.Coolabahapple (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete when a person is listed as "editor" of a book, their relationship to the work is complex. Clearly it is not a sign of notability and we clearly lack sourcing that shows that Hawkins is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkins is listed as author of the books mentioned, not the editor as this comment suggests. Millandhouse33 (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This noted author and psychologist has been repeatedly targeted be the GSoW (Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia) for years - now again. Whether your beliefs align with his or not, he is a notable author and his books are still being published after his death. There are no grounds for deletion here, other than the 'it was deleted before' circular logic. That should tell you something - he still keeps coming up after his death for a reason - because 'HE IS NOTABLE'. There is also the well-developed German Language Wikipedia entry for Hawkins which has never been deleted. You should look into that (it is also targeted by the Guerrilla Skeptics movement). And just for good measure, he was interviewed by Oprah Winfrey for his best-selling book, so at least she found him 'notable' for his work. Go do the research.Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a Korean page about him.

A coordinated attack would certainly explain the completely false reasons given for deletion, eg people below falsely claiming he is the editor not the author of his books, false claims that page is identical to a previous one. Millandhouse33 (talk)

You will find that a lot, with hundreds of entries that the GSoW wish to purge from Wikipedia. Even a case where a well-known alternative author was consulted and he himself gave his birth information only to be told by the deletionists working his entry that he was not a reliable enough source to obtain that information from - he was told he was not credible enough to give his own birthdate -simple tactic to add more suspicion about the validity of the entry. Just be aware of what you are dealing with for the longevity of this article. Best. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- this is an issue that comes up frequently on Wikipedia:Help desk where people ask for personal information in articles to be changed - Wikipedia depends on published secondary sources and people are not always reliable sources about themselves - it does not only affect alternative authors and is not a means of targeting, it's following guidelines - Epinoia (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2019 (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.