Gabriel Cousens – Allow recreation, without prejudice against renomination at AfD. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] The article was renominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Cousens (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Gabriel Cousens (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) I have written a completely new draft here: User:Ocaasi/Gabriel Cousens. The article was previously deleted due to lack of notability and one event issues. There were also some BLP concerns about controversial information relating to the Charles Levy Controversy. This draft draws on a variety of mainstream, regional and national news, as well as natural health and skeptical news sources. I think the subject's notability is pretty solid. One-event issues were cleared up by focusing broadly on all sourced aspects of Cousens' life, work, retreat center, film productions, and publications. The controversy is but one section among 4 or 5 substantial ones. In the previous AfD, Cousens' mentioned that he didn't believe the Phoenix New Times [1], which is used in the Controversy section, was reliable. I was careful to very neutrally phrase the information from that article, as well as adding sources from Arizona Central [2] and Quackwatch [3]. I think the treatment is in line with NPOV and V and only leaves a remote possibility that Cousens would pursue legal action through the Foundation. I don't believe it's our job to preemptively censor articles, so I believe the article as written should be created and legal issues left for the Foundation to handle. If there is consensus among other editors that the controversy section was mishandled, they can be resolved by either searching for other sources, removing information, or rephrasing the text. In any event, the majority of the article as written should be uncontroversial and is well sourced, so in a worst case scenario the controversy section could just be removed (though I think that would be a mistake and not required by policy). I have spoken with the admin who closed the AfD and he encouraged me to pursue this Deletion Review. Ocaasi^{t \| c} 19:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Gabriel Cousens personally requested that his article be deleted in this diff. I think the substantive question at this DRV is whether Dr Cousens is notable enough to warrant overruling his wishes. On the one hand, we do have a basic duty to tell our readers the truth, and it's verifiable that a medical examiner pinned the death of Charles Levy directly on Dr Cousens (source in the draft article but for convenience the link is here); besides, Dr Cousens' dietary recommendations strike me as most peculiar and highly unlikely to enhance his patients' health. We might save people some money, or even some medical issues, by having an appropriately NPOV article in this space. But on the other hand, we aren't Snopes. We aren't trying to expose people of whose practices we disapprove, but to write a comprehensive, objective and neutral encyclopaedia. I don't see that Dr Cousens is so notable that we need an article on him—which means it isn't necessary to expose the Wikimedia Foundation to legal risk or Wikipedia's reputation to another controversy concerning a living person. It seems unwise to court trouble when we don't need to. I can see a lot of effort's gone into that draft, and I've no wish to be unpleasant but on balance I'm more persuaded by the case for not publishing it to the mainspace. If you're the kind of person who likes words in bold then you should read this whole comment as ~~weak keep deleted~~: I don't feel strongly about this, I think it's a judgment call and if editors do wish to keep it then I would be persuadable.—S Marshall T/C 20:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure if responding to comments is typical at Deletion Review (this is my first), but I have a few thoughts about this. I wasn't aware that notability required a need, as opposed to merely significant coverage in reliable sources. Does the draft have that? That's the first question. The later notion, that we have to balance the subject's wishes or legal risk to the foundation over the motive to expose odd or potentially dangerous practices all strike me as concepts that are unfamiliar or absent from my understanding of policy. Could you point me to where it suggests we're supposed to use discretion for that type of balancing of interests, or even consider those issues at all? Is there any stipulation or precedent for editors (as opposed to the foundation) avoiding controversial articles for preemptive legal concerns? (Although many of us fashion otherwise, our role is neither to be muckrackers or lawyers). You said, "It seems unwise to court trouble when we don't need to"; that kind of sentiment seems like permission for self-censorship; how many other articles would we just skip to be on the safe side? That doesn't strike me as in line with the encyclopedia's core mission--which is to share knowledge--not to avoid liability. That may be a naive analysis, but I think it's important nonetheless. I acknowledge that a lot of work went into this draft, but I don't conceive of that as reason to recreate or alternately keep the article deleted--the only question for me is does the article meet article creation guidelines and were the issues from the previous AfD sufficiently improved upon. In my opinion, the only lingering issue is the potential legal threat. I note that in all other cases the person expressing that legal concern would likely be blocked rather than heeded, and the article would remain until the foundation intervened. Assuming there are no BLP or RS issues (which might not be fair to assume), why would we respond differently here? If there is a question about the sourcing of the controversy section, let's address that on the merits, perhaps taking it to WP:RSN or WP:BLPN where they can weigh whether Phoenix New Times, Arizona Central, and QuackWatch--the 3 sources on which the controversy section is based--are sufficiently reliable to source this type of claim. Phoenix New Times is used in over 500 actual Wikipedia articles[4] as a reference or external link. Although Cousens characterized Phoenix New Times as a 'tabloid', it's run by the same media group as the Village Voice and has won awards for its investigative reporting [5]. Quackwatch has repeatedly be judged to be reliable for limited areas within its expertise at WP:RSN [6]; examples: [7][8][9]. I note that the Quackwatch article I used is referenced itself and does not cite the Phoenix New Times article; instead it is a secondary reading of court documents, which should broaden the perception that the section is supported only by one source. Arizona Central (now Arizona Republic) is the state's largest newspaper and has been in the top 10 nationally for circulation.[10] In a worst case, the controversy section can still be removed and the article judged on what remains. I don't know what protocol here is, but in the event that concerns did not outright permit recreation, I'd at least appreciate a broader hearing at a relisted AfD if that's within possible responses. Ocaasi^{t \| c} 23:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] You are very welcome indeed to reply to comments in a deletion review: this is supposed to be a consensus-seeking conversation, and I have no doubt that your thoughtful approach to this will enhance your prospects of success. You raise quite a few issues. You're quite right to say that there's no element of "need" in the concept of notability. Something's either notable or it isn't. But with biographies of living people, notability isn't the only factor and we do sometimes delete BLPs about notable people. This is well-summarised in Sean Williams' closing statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd), which was endorsed at deletion review. Basically, administrators have discretion to take the subject's wishes into account in deciding whether or not to delete. This could lead to a deletion even when the subject is otherwise somewhat notable, providing he's not clearly notable (so to use an extreme example, Barack Obama couldn't opt out of having a Wikipedia biography). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginger Jolie and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Blake (broadcaster) are also relevant examples of how Wikipedians view deletion of BLPs at the subject's request. It is, of course, quite true that precedent does not have binding force on Wikipedia, and we might reach a different decision on this case.—S Marshall T/C 12:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for linking to those prior discussion. I wasn't aware that subjects' wishes had been taken into account before. That expands the scope of the debate considerably. I apologize in advance for lacking brevity or approaching polemics. RATIONALE I take seriously that BLP articles can do real world harm to people, and we should be cognizant of that. I didn't write this article to either promote or expose Cousens, only to thoroughly and neutrally describe his significant views and engagements. There are cases where borderline-notable people would have their privacy infringed upon for little benefit to readers, and in those cases I can conceive of taking their views into account and even letting them prevail in deciding to delete an article. This is not one of those cases. Cousens is an internationally noted authority, a global teacher and trusted spiritual advisor. He is not only a doctor to the people who visit him and follow him, but a priest (or Rabbi, since he's into Jewish spirituality). He promotes himself as an expert and independent sources confirm his reputation in the natural health field. People trust this man with their diets, their bodies, their ailments, and their souls. They pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars to receive his guidance. Renown doctors, politicians, religious figures, as public figures, lose their presumption of privacy. Available information, commentary, and criticism on those individuals serves a vital public interest. It is unavoidable that in the neutral presentation of reliably sourced material that we will come upon matters which reflect negatively on the subject. In the case of a small-time academic or fledgling artist, the potential harm that material may do could outweigh the benefit. In this case, the potential harm is intimately linked to the potential good that it serves readers and the public to be informed. As it is our goal to share information with the world, I believe we have not just permission, but a positive duty to cover such topics responsibly. When an individual touts his myriad credentials, accepts money for explaining his views and instructing in his practices, makes novel and bold medical claims which are promoted in newspaper and film, challenges the scientific consensus, and earns a reputation as a guru and expert... these are the very people who are ripe to be a focus of summary and review. These are the people the public, our readers--our customers and clients and peers--not only want to know about but need to know about. I'm sure that the Levy incident was tragic for Cousens and that he is terrified it will prevent all of the positive work he is doing. It looks bad, it sounds bad, it raises caution and red flags. That is not a reason to exclude it; quite the contrary, it's the reason it must be included. It's ironic, because I started this article with the goal of providing information about Cousens for people who would be interested in his teachings--I knew nothing about Charles Levy until midway through my research. But now I will stand to defends its inclusion as an essential component of our mission as an encyclopedia. That might be overly grand, but the principles we espouse are won and lost in the individual cases where they are challenged. Cousens, in sum, has no reasonable expectation of privacy in this case. He lost that when he became an expert, developed a devoted following, sold his knowledge, and promoted his influence, made medical claims, and dismissed scientific consensus; and when other reliable published sources covered his life, work, views, projects and travails in detail; then it became our responsibility to summarize it neutrally. PREDECENT Closed as delete Seth Finklestein: This discussion raised the issue of BLP deletion standards saying, "According to the BLP deletion standards, the closer of the deletion debate should take into account the wishes of the subject if the subject is on the fringe of notability... Editors need to realize, if they haven't done so already, that Wikipedia is not a game. Biographies of living persons are not something to be taken lightly." Although I confer with the second part, I think the first is exclusionary here. There is not a question of Cousens' notability. Durova summarized my sentiment: "By no means do I propose an aggressively PC deletion standard at every Wikipedia article. I do suggest that the subjects of lower-end notability BLP articles be granted more respect when one asks us to delete the particular article about himself or herself. " Is this article really that low on the notability standard, so low that Woody Harrelson talks about him, he has a movie about his work, he blogs on naturalnews.com, gives frequent interviews, is written about in skeptical sources, and has a dedicated feature profile in Rolling Stone Argentina? Suffice to say I don't think it is. Finklestein in said the discussion: "On a human level – setting any personal antipathies aside – it’s fair that we extend one courtesy in return: although Wikipedia is not paper, some living people who began their careers in the era of paper publishing and prefer to lead relatively private lives." But Cousens has actively decided not to lead a private life. He writes books, has a youtube channel, offers courses, promotes his retreat center, and offers his service and guidance to the world. This is a person who may wish to be hidden from scrutiny, but he cannot have it both ways, promoting himself where it serves him but avoiding attention where it may harm his endeavors. That of course is a natural motivation, but it's not our motivation. Jon Blake (broadcaster): Closed with "In my judgment, notability has been neither established nor verified by reliable, non-trivial sources. While I eschew the idea of a subject dictating the terms or presence of an article, there is sufficient precident for such. Wisdom suggests that we are better off without this article at least until notability can be verified." Dragonfly said it succinctly: "The defining characteristic of notability is the presence of coverage in external sources, and this appears to fail." Again, I don't think notability is seriously in doubt here. There are 29 different sources (own website pages: 5 plus 1 for his movie's website; regional news: 11; natural health/food websites: 3; skeptical websites: 3: and the Rolling Stone Argentina feature). There are also 4 unique further reading options which are also RS. And just for kicks, there are also 458,000 Google results for ["Gabriel Cousens" eat raw]. In the case of Blake, there was only 1 major award and the rest of the material had doubts about verification. In the Cousens article the available sources have been exhausted (as far as Google will allow). This is a different beast, because frankly, it appears to be a more thoroughly written and referenced article. Ginger Jolie: This discussion closed no consensus, default to delete. As a pornbio, Durova said, “The difference to Wikipedia's completeness is trivial; the difference to her life is enormous.” I would ask whether we also need to consider the difference this article would make to the lives of our readers, who do not have a voice in this debate as Cousens has had. As much as Cousens has a right to protect his reputation, we have a responsibility to the public to provide valuable (and sometimes critical) information. That is our right, and BLP concerns may influence it, but it does not override it, in my opinion. The closing admin noted WP:NPF which states in part: "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there is additional protection for subjects who are not public figures." I would hold that there is no evidence that the controversial claims are defamatory. They are based off of three apparently reputable sources, at least two of which did their own investigation into court documents. I do not believe there is a question of fact as to whether or not the death was actually ruled to be caused by Cousens. And the rest of the section merely presents arguments from both sides in a neutral way. Also, Nil Enne commented that the sourcing in Jolie's article was primarily from her own website and a single award she won. In contrast, Cousens' article draws on a panoply of sources, the majority of which are independent of the source. Rand Fishkin: Durova commented, "Mr. Fishkin's page is a stub and he's probably less notable than either Mr. Finkelstein or Mr. Brandt. I doubt very much that any paper-and-ink encyclopedia would devote an article to him, and although this is sourced, it's basically only five lines of material. That's unlikely to ever grow into a featured article and the person whose most affected by this article's existence would be happier without it." I would note that Cousens' article is definitely not a stub; it is well developed and well organized. It would have a chance of approaching GA status with some work, and even FA status with serious attention. The material to do it is already there. Daniel Brandt: The 14th nomination of this subject resulted in a merge. The close said: "Brandt's activities are subjects of significant commentary, and as such should be covered in this encyclopedia...This article causes Brandt distress, largely because of previous and potential coverage of minor things he'd rather not have discussed in public but which have been mentioned in minor self-published publications Brandt has mostly tried to bury...This article cannot hope to be complete, due to incomplete coverage in the sources, which largely treat him as a private figure." In Cousens' case, he is also the subject of significant commentary and should be covered in the encyclopedia. If the article causes Cousens distress because of the Levy controversy, is it really our role to prevent that rather than just present the information for all of our readers to decide for themselves. Again, in balancing interests of having an article vs. causing harm to the subject, we also need to consider the harm to readers from not having an available and comprehensive article which covers controversial areas. Last, this article can hope to be complete, because the coverage in sources is substantial. In sum, I think the 5 precedents, although mostly controversial 'close calls' which I likely would have supported article creation for, do not apply to Cousens because of the depth of sources on which the article is based, and the care that went into representing their content neutrally. Closed as keep Martin Halstead: The article closed as keep. Catfish Jim and the soapdish said, "Subject is clearly sufficiently notable to warrant an article. I can't see any valid argument for deletion here, although I can see that the article might be slightly embarrassing for the subject." The argument was made that any WP:UNDUE issues should be resolved by fixing the article not deleting it. Similarly, the Cousens article, if there are particular faults or excesses could be improved rather than deleted. Rich Shapero: Close discussion was closed as keep with indefinite semi-protection to prevent vandalism. Nuujinn commented, "Yes, the subject has only published one book, but it's the release of same that garnered attention in the press, and is thus notable." Cousens has published 7 books, several of which were explicitly mentioned in independent newspapers and niche sources. NYKevin said, "If OTRS et al. decide to WP:G9 this, that's their choice. Until then, this is an apparently sourced BLP which should be rewritten through normal channels (i.e. the discussion page)." I agree that unless the Foundation's legal department intervenes, this article should be created and discussed through normal channels rather than preempting legal action ourselves. Tristan Emmanuel This closed as no consensus but defaulted to keep. Close said, "The outcome therefore hinges on whether Emmanuel is a "relatively unknown, non-public figure". After reviewing the discussion, I gather that Emmanuel has been the leader of political rallies and run for public office. It is difficult to conciliate those activities, where public attention is sought, with Emmanuel being a "non-public figure". Since Emmanuel's political activity make him a public figure, the "no consensus" outcome here is defaulting to keep." Like Emmanuel, Cousens is arguably a public figure due to both his reputation, his self-promotion, and his global teaching activities. CJCurrie noted, " I am not opposed to deleting the biographical pages of truly marginal figures whose future prospects may be hindered by past utterances, but Tristan Emmanuel is not a marginal figure. He received extensive media coverage in 2003 and 2005-06". Cousens has also been the subject of relatively extensive media coverage from a variety of sources. GrantNeufeld noted: "The numerous references show, cumulatively, pretty clear notability. The subject’s apparent desire to not have an article about themself should carry no weight here. The key here, as with all such articles, is to ensure that WP:BLP is being followed, which the well-cited content of the articles seems to do." Vanessa Hall-Smith. Closed as keep: "The result was keep as there is consensus here that the topic passes the notability threshold, and the argument that we ought to tear pages out of the encyclopaedia on the whim of the subject is in this case unconvincing." SoWhy noted, "The subject's wish is not to be ignored lightly but someone with such broad coverage in multiple reliable sources and even an articles in The Times is not someone who can be described as a "non-public" figure. Non-public figures don't go around in public or give interviews, do they?" I feel similarly about Cousens' advocacy and promotion. DGG added, "Clearly notable, so we have no basis for removing the article. The (in my opinion disastrously anti-NPOV) policy of paying respect to the subjects wishes only applies in borderline cases, and Director of the British Institute of Florence and a public career reported in reliable sources is not borderline. We're an encyclopedia, not a place where the subjects choose whether or not they want to be written about based on mere preference." Steve Benson (cartoonist): This artist bio with vandalism concerns and controversy sections was closed as keep. Arxiloxos said, "With due sympathy for the vandalism, Benson is a Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist, a former president of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists[1], and the subject of substantial coverage throughout his career[2]. He is controversial, and these controversies have been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources, e.g. [3][4][5][6][7]. We have an article for every Pulitzer-winning cartoonist since 1971, and all but 3 of the winners since 1940. Deleting the article creates a gap in Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of editorial cartooning. There are better remedies for vandalism targets." Although Cousens has not won major awards, the list of people who hail him as an "authority", "expert" "prominent" "leading" individual is long. Natural health figures are an important part of encyclopedic coverage of the alternative medicine field, and I similarly feel lacking this article creates a 'gap' in our coverage. I'll note that there are many deletion discussions and I am looking to find counterexamples of subject-requested-deletions which resulted in keep/create. They're available in the AFD archives and the Deletion Review archives. Ocaasi^{t \| c} 17:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Update: I found 5 keeps to match the 5 closes. I don't get a sense that there's an overwhelming consensus one way or the other in these articles. If anything, the standard seems to be mixed--but it always comes down to notability and coverage in reliable sources. In order to keep Cousens' article from being created, there would have to be a more serious effort to show that his notability is somehow lacking, or that the sources are somehow inadequate. I haven't seen that analysis presented here yet. Ocaasi^{t \| c} 19:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Off the top of my head, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Halstead (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Shapero (3rd nomination) were both subject-requested deletions that resulted in keep closures. In both cases there had been earlier AfD debates where the subject hadn't been involved. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] There's no way this is ever going to be anything but a matter of opinion. Mine is generally that marginally-notable people ought to be able to opt out of having a Wikipedia article. But having said that, I also don't object to exposés of alternative medicine and I can see and appreciate that this article will be well-defended from vandals. I'm going to withdraw my !vote above. Please would the closer consider me neutral.—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Permit recreation with an optional relist, though it will need some editing to remove excessive detail, which I am willing to do. The fundamental rule is that Wikipedia is not censored. There's sufficient documented notability. The subject may prefer not to have it, but that's as irrelevant as if he thought the opposite--had it been an entirely positive article I doubt he would have objected. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Excessive detail is my weakness at times (at least as an encyclopediast); if you point out some of the worst offending sections, I can try and trim them myself as well. (I don't think that's a reason to exclude the draft, though perhaps something to focus on in my future writing).Ocaasi^{t \| c} 23:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Question Would it be considered canvassing to ask a few experienced editors who are active in the alternative medicine/pseudoscience area to comment here, provided I merely notify them that the discussion exists and don't make a statement either way about my position? These are people who I have worked with in the past, but often from different sides of a debate; I wouldn't consider them my allies and I respect their independence. What if I try to notify an equal proportion of scientifically minded as well as natural health interested editors? Ocaasi^{t \| c} 02:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] I would suggest a neutrally-worded note on the talk page of a relevant Wikiproject.—S Marshall T/C 12:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] I took your advice and notified WikiProjects Medicine, Alternative Views, Alternative Medicine, and Rational Skepticism. I also left a note at noticeboards BLPN, FTN, and RSN. I hope this wasn't excessive, the messages were short and neutral, for example this notification. I didn't contact individual editors, as that seems a little more fraught with potential bias. Thanks for the tip. Ocaasi^{t \| c} 18:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the closure - I oppose Occassi's immediate attempt to recreate. Youreallycan 04:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Any reason? If there are specific sections or aspects that need rewriting, it'd be helpful to know. Ocaasi^{t \| c} 09:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] In addition, there is nothing "immediate" about it. I closed the underlying AfD in August, 2010; this is a substantially different article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] I thought this was a deletion review, excuse me. So theres nothing to endorse. Youreallycan 15:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment. I want to add one more thing to the considerable content I've submitted already. Cousens' reputation is international, as a leading expert in his field. Alternative medicine is a very popular topic, and within it, diet, raw food and spirituality are significant components. Cousens is listed as not just an expert in this area, but one of the most prominent experts. Here's what others have said about him: Rolling Stone Argentina: an American guru and the highest international authority in the field of "live food" NaturalNews: a "pioneer" of the raw foods movement TreeHugger: a "household name" on the subject of raw vegan food emPOWER Magazine: a "published authority on alternative healing and raw living food nutritional therapies. AllAfrica.com: an "internationally acclaimed health guru" Nutraceuticals World: a "highly-reputed medical researcher and internationally-known sprout expert" Portland Press Herald: an "international teacher...considered by some to be a leading medical authority on live food nutrition" Midwest Book Review: "one of the world's foremost experts in the preparation and nutritional values of raw food consumption for the mind and body" Dynamic Chiropractic: a "forerunner" in live food diets Clevelend Jewish News: a "celebrated healer and spiritual facilitator" Actor Woody Harrelson: "In my mind, Gabriel Cousens is probably the greatest living health practitioner." I think those speak directly to his notability, his prominence, and his reputation. I think we should have an article on this person. Ocaasi^{t \| c} 03:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Are these quotes that you have or intent to use in the article? Although these quotes present the subject in a favorable light - the article you have written and are desirous of publishing using en wikipedia appears more focused on deriding his treatments. Quackguru - is that attack site even a wikipedia reliable source? Youreallycan 05:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Those quotes are indeed in the article; however, per DGG's recommendation that the writings was overly detailed I had to merely mention some of them in passing. This article in no way intends to deride Cousens; that is a misperception. Simply because Cousens doesn't want information about a controversy included doesn't mean my purpose in writing the article is to 'get him' by publishing that information. It's merely one aspect of a very long, detailed, and I think balanced treatment. Please give the article a fair and close reading before deciding it has a point of view or an agenda. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t \| c} 06:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] And jonny said he was this and harry said he was that and now off to the guackguru style attack of him. Your article doesn't reflect these quotes at all. -they are your excuse to publish the attack content. - If you manage to publish your desired article using en wikipedia - the person in the picture that is not the subject will need cropping out of the picture - I will do it for you if the article is published.Youreallycan 07:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] I think you are mistaken about both the article's neutrality as well as my own motivations. I will be happy to include every one of those 'positive' quotes. I had done so originally and only shortened them at the request of DGG, who thought listing all of them was too promotional. Since they seem to have a direct bearing on this discussion, I will add them back in full. For the record, I spent about 8 months trying to stop Quackguru from turning Chiropractic into more of a hitpiece than it already was. I also have expanded content on noted alternative health practitioners such as Mary G. Enig and Weston A. Price. I started the holistic dentistry article, Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, Suzanne Segal and mediated a dispute at Astrology where there was an attempt to put 'pseudoscientific' in the first sentence three words of the introduction. I have tried to be a responsible editor and not promote the views of these subjects , but if anyone who knows my work was going to accuse me of bias, it would be to say that I am too kind and too inclusive of the works of alternative medicine topics. If you're still in doubt, ask User:Yobol or User:WLU, two smart, scientifically minded editors, with whom I have collaborated in the past. I hesitate to be blunt about this, but I think you're just wrong in this case. As I said above, when I started writing this article, I did so at the request of my sister, who is a fan and follower of Cousens. I wanted him to have an article so that who like him could read about him. Only midway through my research did I discover the Levy case. On the merits, even if I was some type of alternative medicine assassin, is there anything in the exact phrasing or construction of the controversy section that you object to? Are the three sources on which it's based not sufficient? YouReallyCan, there are currently 41 references in the article. Three of them focus on the controversy. The article is 4000 words long, of which just over 400 of them are about the controversy. I believe that is a good indicator of the appropriate weight I have given to the subject. I sincerely ask you to give the article a close second look. I appreciate the offer to crop the picture. I have been in contact with the woman in that photograph through email and she did not object to its use. Is there a reason it needs to be cropped? Ocaasi^{t \| c} 13:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] You say, "but if anyone who knows my work was going to accuse me of bias, it would be to say that I am too kind and too inclusive of the works of alternative medicine topics.", thats nice and your comments speak well of you - and your strong desire to replace an OTRS and AFD removed contentious article might well succeed, but that will not stop it being turned slowly slowly into the same kind of article it was previous. Its common knowledge that on en wikipedia there is a strong anti alternative medicine aspect to the whole sector of content and that policy is not strong enough, or complied with enough, to defend a neutral report and that is why I still strongly support this livings persons request for the en wikipedia project to not host a biography on him. As for the picture, whether or not she objects to appearing forever in a wikipedia article, she is not the subject of the article, and she is not a notable person and imo is better cropped out of the picture. My reading of Wikipedia:IMAGES appears to point towards support for this position. Youreallycan 15:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] I have viewed the OTRS ticket and there was no follow-up that I can see from the Foundation. It was just Cousens expressing his view, exactly as he did at the AfD. That AfD was based on a completely different article than the draft I wrote, which I believe resolved the notability, one event, and neutrality issues. As for what happens if this article goes live, neither deletion nor page protection is designed to preemptively protect articles from turning the wrong way. If needed, that is what semi-protection or full-protection are for. Needless to say, I will keep a close eye on this article assuming it is created, and concerned editors will have to strive to maintain its neutrality, just like on any controversial article. Also, thank you for your consideration of my background and intent here. It sounds like your objection is not based so much on the particular article I wrote but on your broader concerns about BLP policy and its enforcement. If that's a fair description, then I can only suggest that we are constrained to avoid WP:HARM to subjects but also to follow policy and to summarize reliable sources. If I have done that faithfully, then I believe the article should be created, and then watched carefully, rather than kept out of the encyclopedia. I'm not particularly concerned about the image either way. If we need to crop it, that's fine.Ocaasi^{t \| c} 16:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Recreate. Sometimes I establish notability on the basis of WP:AUTHOR by citing several book reviews (see Adam Berinsky, Robert Martensen, and Johnathan Oberlander). So I searched and I found a few book reviews on his books. On the basis of that, and other coverage talking about how he is culturally influential, the guy sure seems notable to me per WP:CREATIVE. Jesanj (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment By normal criteria, there was no need to bring this issue to DRV, the work that has gone into this article is excellent and no discussion is needed. This is not normal, though. The DRVs opening statement, "The article was previously deleted due to lack of notability" says much more than was intended. The closer said nothing about notability, and editors at the AfD that used the word "notable" give no evidence that they did any research into whether or not this topic is notable. There is plenty of evidence in the new article that the topic was notable at the time of the first AfD. What we have is broad AfD consensus that the article failed WP:NPOV. The continuation of this line of thought is expressed by a further statement at this DRV, "we are constrained to avoid WP:HARM to subjects but also to follow policy". Well, here is the problem, if as a group we don't have a functional understanding of the word "wp:notability", can we trust ourselves to do no WP:HARM and to follow policy"? Several times at Wikipedia I have found myself quoting, "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." I don't recall anyone saying, "I agree." The fact is that there are no constraints for the assertion "we are constrained...to follow policy". I am going to make a policy-based argument, the policy being WP:IAR, that the doctor be invited to participate in this discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] I've been in touch with Gabriel Cousens' assistant, as Cousens is out of the country temporarily. The assistant was pleased with the effort that went into the new draft, but thought it focused too much on nutrition and not on spirituality, which I attempted to remedy with new sources I discovered. He was also very critical of the Phoenix New Times source, the accuracy of which he disputed. I encouraged him to publish a formal response to that article on the Tree of Life website, and they are considering it. Hopefully Cousens will find the new article an improvement and drop his objection. If not, it will have to be considered in light of the article's sourcing and neutrality. Ocaasi^{t \| c} 12:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Leaning towards allow recreation here. The new article isn't perfect, but to my mind it does enough to a) overcome the previous reasons for deletion, b) establish notability and c) avoid creating any major BLP issues by presenting the controversy neutrally as only a small part of a longer article about Cousens's career. We will of course have to be very careful to make sure it stays neutral, but we have the ability to do that so that isn't a barrier to recreation. Alzarian16 (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation. My own view is that while the concerns of article subjects should be carefully taken into account when dealing with article content they should not be able to opt out of having an article if they meet the ordinary notability criteria. Notability is already difficult to judge without adding a new standard of "too notable to veto having an article" to keep track of. In this case, the new draft sufficiently addresses the concerns that led to deletion that recreation without prejudice to any new AfD is appropriate. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Gabriel Cousens – Allow recreation, without prejudice against renomination at AfD. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was renominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Cousens (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I have written a completely new draft here: User:Ocaasi/Gabriel Cousens. The article was previously deleted due to lack of notability and one event issues. There were also some BLP concerns about controversial information relating to the Charles Levy Controversy. This draft draws on a variety of mainstream, regional and national news, as well as natural health and skeptical news sources. I think the subject's notability is pretty solid. One-event issues were cleared up by focusing broadly on all sourced aspects of Cousens' life, work, retreat center, film productions, and publications. The controversy is but one section among 4 or 5 substantial ones. In the previous AfD, Cousens' mentioned that he didn't believe the Phoenix New Times [1], which is used in the Controversy section, was reliable. I was careful to very neutrally phrase the information from that article, as well as adding sources from Arizona Central [2] and Quackwatch [3]. I think the treatment is in line with NPOV and V and only leaves a remote possibility that Cousens would pursue legal action through the Foundation. I don't believe it's our job to preemptively censor articles, so I believe the article as written should be created and legal issues left for the Foundation to handle. If there is consensus among other editors that the controversy section was mishandled, they can be resolved by either searching for other sources, removing information, or rephrasing the text. In any event, the majority of the article as written should be uncontroversial and is well sourced, so in a worst case scenario the controversy section could just be removed (though I think that would be a mistake and not required by policy). I have spoken with the admin who closed the AfD and he encouraged me to pursue this Deletion Review. Ocaasi^{t | c} 19:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Cousens personally requested that his article be deleted in this diff. I think the substantive question at this DRV is whether Dr Cousens is notable enough to warrant overruling his wishes. On the one hand, we do have a basic duty to tell our readers the truth, and it's verifiable that a medical examiner pinned the death of Charles Levy directly on Dr Cousens (source in the draft article but for convenience the link is here); besides, Dr Cousens' dietary recommendations strike me as most peculiar and highly unlikely to enhance his patients' health. We might save people some money, or even some medical issues, by having an appropriately NPOV article in this space.
But on the other hand, we aren't Snopes. We aren't trying to expose people of whose practices we disapprove, but to write a comprehensive, objective and neutral encyclopaedia. I don't see that Dr Cousens is so notable that we need an article on him—which means it isn't necessary to expose the Wikimedia Foundation to legal risk or Wikipedia's reputation to another controversy concerning a living person. It seems unwise to court trouble when we don't need to.
I can see a lot of effort's gone into that draft, and I've no wish to be unpleasant but on balance I'm more persuaded by the case for not publishing it to the mainspace.
If you're the kind of person who likes words in bold then you should read this whole comment as ~~weak keep deleted~~: I don't feel strongly about this, I think it's a judgment call and if editors do wish to keep it then I would be persuadable.—S Marshall T/C 20:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if responding to comments is typical at Deletion Review (this is my first), but I have a few thoughts about this. I wasn't aware that notability required a need, as opposed to merely significant coverage in reliable sources. Does the draft have that? That's the first question. The later notion, that we have to balance the subject's wishes or legal risk to the foundation over the motive to expose odd or potentially dangerous practices all strike me as concepts that are unfamiliar or absent from my understanding of policy. Could you point me to where it suggests we're supposed to use discretion for that type of balancing of interests, or even consider those issues at all? Is there any stipulation or precedent for editors (as opposed to the foundation) avoiding controversial articles for preemptive legal concerns? (Although many of us fashion otherwise, our role is neither to be muckrackers or lawyers). You said, "It seems unwise to court trouble when we don't need to"; that kind of sentiment seems like permission for self-censorship; how many other articles would we just skip to be on the safe side? That doesn't strike me as in line with the encyclopedia's core mission--which is to share knowledge--not to avoid liability. That may be a naive analysis, but I think it's important nonetheless. I acknowledge that a lot of work went into this draft, but I don't conceive of that as reason to recreate or alternately keep the article deleted--the only question for me is does the article meet article creation guidelines and were the issues from the previous AfD sufficiently improved upon. In my opinion, the only lingering issue is the potential legal threat. I note that in all other cases the person expressing that legal concern would likely be blocked rather than heeded, and the article would remain until the foundation intervened. Assuming there are no BLP or RS issues (which might not be fair to assume), why would we respond differently here?
- If there is a question about the sourcing of the controversy section, let's address that on the merits, perhaps taking it to WP:RSN or WP:BLPN where they can weigh whether Phoenix New Times, Arizona Central, and QuackWatch--the 3 sources on which the controversy section is based--are sufficiently reliable to source this type of claim. Phoenix New Times is used in over 500 actual Wikipedia articles[4] as a reference or external link. Although Cousens characterized Phoenix New Times as a 'tabloid', it's run by the same media group as the Village Voice and has won awards for its investigative reporting [5]. Quackwatch has repeatedly be judged to be reliable for limited areas within its expertise at WP:RSN [6]; examples: [7][8][9]. I note that the Quackwatch article I used is referenced itself and does not cite the Phoenix New Times article; instead it is a secondary reading of court documents, which should broaden the perception that the section is supported only by one source. Arizona Central (now Arizona Republic) is the state's largest newspaper and has been in the top 10 nationally for circulation.[10]
- In a worst case, the controversy section can still be removed and the article judged on what remains. I don't know what protocol here is, but in the event that concerns did not outright permit recreation, I'd at least appreciate a broader hearing at a relisted AfD if that's within possible responses. Ocaasi^{t | c} 23:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are very welcome indeed to reply to comments in a deletion review: this is supposed to be a consensus-seeking conversation, and I have no doubt that your thoughtful approach to this will enhance your prospects of success. You raise quite a few issues. You're quite right to say that there's no element of "need" in the concept of notability. Something's either notable or it isn't. But with biographies of living people, notability isn't the only factor and we do sometimes delete BLPs about notable people. This is well-summarised in Sean Williams' closing statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd), which was endorsed at deletion review. Basically, administrators have discretion to take the subject's wishes into account in deciding whether or not to delete. This could lead to a deletion even when the subject is otherwise somewhat notable, providing he's not clearly notable (so to use an extreme example, Barack Obama couldn't opt out of having a Wikipedia biography). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginger Jolie and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Blake (broadcaster) are also relevant examples of how Wikipedians view deletion of BLPs at the subject's request.
    It is, of course, quite true that precedent does not have binding force on Wikipedia, and we might reach a different decision on this case.—S Marshall T/C 12:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for linking to those prior discussion. I wasn't aware that subjects' wishes had been taken into account before. That expands the scope of the debate considerably. I apologize in advance for lacking brevity or approaching polemics.
    - RATIONALE
      - I take seriously that BLP articles can do real world harm to people, and we should be cognizant of that. I didn't write this article to either promote or expose Cousens, only to thoroughly and neutrally describe his significant views and engagements.
      - There are cases where borderline-notable people would have their privacy infringed upon for little benefit to readers, and in those cases I can conceive of taking their views into account and even letting them prevail in deciding to delete an article. This is not one of those cases.
      - Cousens is an internationally noted authority, a global teacher and trusted spiritual advisor. He is not only a doctor to the people who visit him and follow him, but a priest (or Rabbi, since he's into Jewish spirituality). He promotes himself as an expert and independent sources confirm his reputation in the natural health field. People trust this man with their diets, their bodies, their ailments, and their souls. They pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars to receive his guidance.
      - Renown doctors, politicians, religious figures, as public figures, lose their presumption of privacy. Available information, commentary, and criticism on those individuals serves a vital public interest. It is unavoidable that in the neutral presentation of reliably sourced material that we will come upon matters which reflect negatively on the subject. In the case of a small-time academic or fledgling artist, the potential harm that material may do could outweigh the benefit. In this case, the potential harm is intimately linked to the potential good that it serves readers and the public to be informed. As it is our goal to share information with the world, I believe we have not just permission, but a positive duty to cover such topics responsibly.
      - When an individual touts his myriad credentials, accepts money for explaining his views and instructing in his practices, makes novel and bold medical claims which are promoted in newspaper and film, challenges the scientific consensus, and earns a reputation as a guru and expert... these are the very people who are ripe to be a focus of summary and review. These are the people the public, our readers--our customers and clients and peers--not only want to know about but need to know about.
      - I'm sure that the Levy incident was tragic for Cousens and that he is terrified it will prevent all of the positive work he is doing. It looks bad, it sounds bad, it raises caution and red flags. That is not a reason to exclude it; quite the contrary, it's the reason it must be included. It's ironic, because I started this article with the goal of providing information about Cousens for people who would be interested in his teachings--I knew nothing about Charles Levy until midway through my research. But now I will stand to defends its inclusion as an essential component of our mission as an encyclopedia. That might be overly grand, but the principles we espouse are won and lost in the individual cases where they are challenged.
      - Cousens, in sum, has no reasonable expectation of privacy in this case. He lost that when he became an expert, developed a devoted following, sold his knowledge, and promoted his influence, made medical claims, and dismissed scientific consensus; and when other reliable published sources covered his life, work, views, projects and travails in detail; then it became our responsibility to summarize it neutrally.
    - PREDECENT
    - Closed as delete
      - Seth Finklestein: This discussion raised the issue of BLP deletion standards saying, "According to the BLP deletion standards, the closer of the deletion debate should take into account the wishes of the subject if the subject is on the fringe of notability... Editors need to realize, if they haven't done so already, that Wikipedia is not a game. Biographies of living persons are not something to be taken lightly." Although I confer with the second part, I think the first is exclusionary here. There is not a question of Cousens' notability. Durova summarized my sentiment: "By no means do I propose an aggressively PC deletion standard at every Wikipedia article. I do suggest that the subjects of lower-end notability BLP articles be granted more respect when one asks us to delete the particular article about himself or herself. " Is this article really that low on the notability standard, so low that Woody Harrelson talks about him, he has a movie about his work, he blogs on naturalnews.com, gives frequent interviews, is written about in skeptical sources, and has a dedicated feature profile in Rolling Stone Argentina? Suffice to say I don't think it is. Finklestein in said the discussion: "On a human level – setting any personal antipathies aside – it’s fair that we extend one courtesy in return: although Wikipedia is not paper, some living people who began their careers in the era of paper publishing and prefer to lead relatively private lives." But Cousens has actively decided not to lead a private life. He writes books, has a youtube channel, offers courses, promotes his retreat center, and offers his service and guidance to the world. This is a person who may wish to be hidden from scrutiny, but he cannot have it both ways, promoting himself where it serves him but avoiding attention where it may harm his endeavors. That of course is a natural motivation, but it's not our motivation.
      - Jon Blake (broadcaster): Closed with "In my judgment, notability has been neither established nor verified by reliable, non-trivial sources. While I eschew the idea of a subject dictating the terms or presence of an article, there is sufficient precident for such. Wisdom suggests that we are better off without this article at least until notability can be verified." Dragonfly said it succinctly: "The defining characteristic of notability is the presence of coverage in external sources, and this appears to fail." Again, I don't think notability is seriously in doubt here. There are 29 different sources (own website pages: 5 plus 1 for his movie's website; regional news: 11; natural health/food websites: 3; skeptical websites: 3: and the Rolling Stone Argentina feature). There are also 4 unique further reading options which are also RS. And just for kicks, there are also 458,000 Google results for ["Gabriel Cousens" eat raw]. In the case of Blake, there was only 1 major award and the rest of the material had doubts about verification. In the Cousens article the available sources have been exhausted (as far as Google will allow). This is a different beast, because frankly, it appears to be a more thoroughly written and referenced article.
      - Ginger Jolie: This discussion closed no consensus, default to delete. As a pornbio, Durova said, “The difference to Wikipedia's completeness is trivial; the difference to her life is enormous.” I would ask whether we also need to consider the difference this article would make to the lives of our readers, who do not have a voice in this debate as Cousens has had. As much as Cousens has a right to protect his reputation, we have a responsibility to the public to provide valuable (and sometimes critical) information. That is our right, and BLP concerns may influence it, but it does not override it, in my opinion. The closing admin noted WP:NPF which states in part: "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there is additional protection for subjects who are not public figures." I would hold that there is no evidence that the controversial claims are defamatory. They are based off of three apparently reputable sources, at least two of which did their own investigation into court documents. I do not believe there is a question of fact as to whether or not the death was actually ruled to be caused by Cousens. And the rest of the section merely presents arguments from both sides in a neutral way. Also, Nil Enne commented that the sourcing in Jolie's article was primarily from her own website and a single award she won. In contrast, Cousens' article draws on a panoply of sources, the majority of which are independent of the source.
      - Rand Fishkin: Durova commented, "Mr. Fishkin's page is a stub and he's probably less notable than either Mr. Finkelstein or Mr. Brandt. I doubt very much that any paper-and-ink encyclopedia would devote an article to him, and although this is sourced, it's basically only five lines of material. That's unlikely to ever grow into a featured article and the person whose most affected by this article's existence would be happier without it." I would note that Cousens' article is definitely not a stub; it is well developed and well organized. It would have a chance of approaching GA status with some work, and even FA status with serious attention. The material to do it is already there.
      - Daniel Brandt: The 14th nomination of this subject resulted in a merge. The close said: "Brandt's activities are subjects of significant commentary, and as such should be covered in this encyclopedia...This article causes Brandt distress, largely because of previous and potential coverage of minor things he'd rather not have discussed in public but which have been mentioned in minor self-published publications Brandt has mostly tried to bury...This article cannot hope to be complete, due to incomplete coverage in the sources, which largely treat him as a private figure." In Cousens' case, he is also the subject of significant commentary and should be covered in the encyclopedia. If the article causes Cousens distress because of the Levy controversy, is it really our role to prevent that rather than just present the information for all of our readers to decide for themselves. Again, in balancing interests of having an article vs. causing harm to the subject, we also need to consider the harm to readers from not having an available and comprehensive article which covers controversial areas. Last, this article can hope to be complete, because the coverage in sources is substantial. In sum, I think the 5 precedents, although mostly controversial 'close calls' which I likely would have supported article creation for, do not apply to Cousens because of the depth of sources on which the article is based, and the care that went into representing their content neutrally.
    - Closed as keep
      - Martin Halstead: The article closed as keep. Catfish Jim and the soapdish said, "Subject is clearly sufficiently notable to warrant an article. I can't see any valid argument for deletion here, although I can see that the article might be slightly embarrassing for the subject." The argument was made that any WP:UNDUE issues should be resolved by fixing the article not deleting it. Similarly, the Cousens article, if there are particular faults or excesses could be improved rather than deleted.
      - Rich Shapero: Close discussion was closed as keep with indefinite semi-protection to prevent vandalism. Nuujinn commented, "Yes, the subject has only published one book, but it's the release of same that garnered attention in the press, and is thus notable." Cousens has published 7 books, several of which were explicitly mentioned in independent newspapers and niche sources. NYKevin said, "If OTRS et al. decide to WP:G9 this, that's their choice. Until then, this is an apparently sourced BLP which should be rewritten through normal channels (i.e. the discussion page)." I agree that unless the Foundation's legal department intervenes, this article should be created and discussed through normal channels rather than preempting legal action ourselves.
      - Tristan Emmanuel This closed as no consensus but defaulted to keep. Close said, "The outcome therefore hinges on whether Emmanuel is a "relatively unknown, non-public figure". After reviewing the discussion, I gather that Emmanuel has been the leader of political rallies and run for public office. It is difficult to conciliate those activities, where public attention is sought, with Emmanuel being a "non-public figure". Since Emmanuel's political activity make him a public figure, the "no consensus" outcome here is defaulting to keep." Like Emmanuel, Cousens is arguably a public figure due to both his reputation, his self-promotion, and his global teaching activities. CJCurrie noted, " I am not opposed to deleting the biographical pages of truly marginal figures whose future prospects may be hindered by past utterances, but Tristan Emmanuel is not a marginal figure. He received extensive media coverage in 2003 and 2005-06". Cousens has also been the subject of relatively extensive media coverage from a variety of sources. GrantNeufeld noted: "The numerous references show, cumulatively, pretty clear notability. The subject’s apparent desire to not have an article about themself should carry no weight here. The key here, as with all such articles, is to ensure that WP:BLP is being followed, which the well-cited content of the articles seems to do."
      - Vanessa Hall-Smith. Closed as keep: "The result was keep as there is consensus here that the topic passes the notability threshold, and the argument that we ought to tear pages out of the encyclopaedia on the whim of the subject is in this case unconvincing." SoWhy noted, "The subject's wish is not to be ignored lightly but someone with such broad coverage in multiple reliable sources and even an articles in The Times is not someone who can be described as a "non-public" figure. Non-public figures don't go around in public or give interviews, do they?" I feel similarly about Cousens' advocacy and promotion. DGG added, "Clearly notable, so we have no basis for removing the article. The (in my opinion disastrously anti-NPOV) policy of paying respect to the subjects wishes only applies in borderline cases, and Director of the British Institute of Florence and a public career reported in reliable sources is not borderline. We're an encyclopedia, not a place where the subjects choose whether or not they want to be written about based on mere preference."
      - Steve Benson (cartoonist): This artist bio with vandalism concerns and controversy sections was closed as keep. Arxiloxos said, "With due sympathy for the vandalism, Benson is a Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist, a former president of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists[1], and the subject of substantial coverage throughout his career[2]. He is controversial, and these controversies have been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources, e.g. [3][4][5][6][7]. We have an article for every Pulitzer-winning cartoonist since 1971, and all but 3 of the winners since 1940. Deleting the article creates a gap in Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of editorial cartooning. There are better remedies for vandalism targets." Although Cousens has not won major awards, the list of people who hail him as an "authority", "expert" "prominent" "leading" individual is long. Natural health figures are an important part of encyclopedic coverage of the alternative medicine field, and I similarly feel lacking this article creates a 'gap' in our coverage.
    - I'll note that there are many deletion discussions and I am looking to find counterexamples of subject-requested-deletions which resulted in keep/create. They're available in the AFD archives and the Deletion Review archives. Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Update: I found 5 keeps to match the 5 closes. I don't get a sense that there's an overwhelming consensus one way or the other in these articles. If anything, the standard seems to be mixed--but it always comes down to notability and coverage in reliable sources. In order to keep Cousens' article from being created, there would have to be a more serious effort to show that his notability is somehow lacking, or that the sources are somehow inadequate. I haven't seen that analysis presented here yet. Ocaasi^{t | c} 19:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Off the top of my head, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Halstead (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Shapero (3rd nomination) were both subject-requested deletions that resulted in keep closures. In both cases there had been earlier AfD debates where the subject hadn't been involved. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        There's no way this is ever going to be anything but a matter of opinion. Mine is generally that marginally-notable people ought to be able to opt out of having a Wikipedia article. But having said that, I also don't object to exposés of alternative medicine and I can see and appreciate that this article will be well-defended from vandals. I'm going to withdraw my !vote above. Please would the closer consider me neutral.—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Permit recreation with an optional relist, though it will need some editing to remove excessive detail, which I am willing to do. The fundamental rule is that Wikipedia is not censored. There's sufficient documented notability. The subject may prefer not to have it, but that's as irrelevant as if he thought the opposite--had it been an entirely positive article I doubt he would have objected. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Excessive detail is my weakness at times (at least as an encyclopediast); if you point out some of the worst offending sections, I can try and trim them myself as well. (I don't think that's a reason to exclude the draft, though perhaps something to focus on in my future writing).Ocaasi^{t | c} 23:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would it be considered canvassing to ask a few experienced editors who are active in the alternative medicine/pseudoscience area to comment here, provided I merely notify them that the discussion exists and don't make a statement either way about my position? These are people who I have worked with in the past, but often from different sides of a debate; I wouldn't consider them my allies and I respect their independence. What if I try to notify an equal proportion of scientifically minded as well as natural health interested editors? Ocaasi^{t | c} 02:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a neutrally-worded note on the talk page of a relevant Wikiproject.—S Marshall T/C 12:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took your advice and notified WikiProjects Medicine, Alternative Views, Alternative Medicine, and Rational Skepticism. I also left a note at noticeboards BLPN, FTN, and RSN. I hope this wasn't excessive, the messages were short and neutral, for example this notification. I didn't contact individual editors, as that seems a little more fraught with potential bias. Thanks for the tip. Ocaasi^{t | c} 18:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the closure - I oppose Occassi's immediate attempt to recreate. Youreallycan 04:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason? If there are specific sections or aspects that need rewriting, it'd be helpful to know. Ocaasi^{t | c} 09:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In addition, there is nothing "immediate" about it. I closed the underlying AfD in August, 2010; this is a substantially different article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I thought this was a deletion review, excuse me. So theres nothing to endorse. Youreallycan 15:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I want to add one more thing to the considerable content I've submitted already. Cousens' reputation is international, as a leading expert in his field. Alternative medicine is a very popular topic, and within it, diet, raw food and spirituality are significant components. Cousens is listed as not just an expert in this area, but one of the most prominent experts. Here's what others have said about him:
- Rolling Stone Argentina: an American guru and the highest international authority in the field of "live food"
- NaturalNews: a "pioneer" of the raw foods movement
- TreeHugger: a "household name" on the subject of raw vegan food
- emPOWER Magazine: a "published authority on alternative healing and raw living food nutritional therapies.
- AllAfrica.com: an "internationally acclaimed health guru"
- Nutraceuticals World: a "highly-reputed medical researcher and internationally-known sprout expert"
- Portland Press Herald: an "international teacher...considered by some to be a leading medical authority on live food nutrition"
- Midwest Book Review: "one of the world's foremost experts in the preparation and nutritional values of raw food consumption for the mind and body"
- Dynamic Chiropractic: a "forerunner" in live food diets
- Clevelend Jewish News: a "celebrated healer and spiritual facilitator"
- Actor Woody Harrelson: "In my mind, Gabriel Cousens is probably the greatest living health practitioner."
I think those speak directly to his notability, his prominence, and his reputation. I think we should have an article on this person. Ocaasi^{t | c} 03:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are these quotes that you have or intent to use in the article? Although these quotes present the subject in a favorable light - the article you have written and are desirous of publishing using en wikipedia appears more focused on deriding his treatments. Quackguru - is that attack site even a wikipedia reliable source? Youreallycan 05:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those quotes are indeed in the article; however, per DGG's recommendation that the writings was overly detailed I had to merely mention some of them in passing. This article in no way intends to deride Cousens; that is a misperception. Simply because Cousens doesn't want information about a controversy included doesn't mean my purpose in writing the article is to 'get him' by publishing that information. It's merely one aspect of a very long, detailed, and I think balanced treatment. Please give the article a fair and close reading before deciding it has a point of view or an agenda. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 06:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And jonny said he was this and harry said he was that and now off to the guackguru style attack of him. Your article doesn't reflect these quotes at all. -they are your excuse to publish the attack content. - If you manage to publish your desired article using en wikipedia - the person in the picture that is not the subject will need cropping out of the picture - I will do it for you if the article is published.Youreallycan 07:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaken about both the article's neutrality as well as my own motivations. I will be happy to include every one of those 'positive' quotes. I had done so originally and only shortened them at the request of DGG, who thought listing all of them was too promotional. Since they seem to have a direct bearing on this discussion, I will add them back in full. For the record, I spent about 8 months trying to stop Quackguru from turning Chiropractic into more of a hitpiece than it already was. I also have expanded content on noted alternative health practitioners such as Mary G. Enig and Weston A. Price. I started the holistic dentistry article, Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, Suzanne Segal and mediated a dispute at Astrology where there was an attempt to put 'pseudoscientific' in the first sentence three words of the introduction. I have tried to be a responsible editor and not promote the views of these subjects , but if anyone who knows my work was going to accuse me of bias, it would be to say that I am too kind and too inclusive of the works of alternative medicine topics. If you're still in doubt, ask User:Yobol or User:WLU, two smart, scientifically minded editors, with whom I have collaborated in the past. I hesitate to be blunt about this, but I think you're just wrong in this case. As I said above, when I started writing this article, I did so at the request of my sister, who is a fan and follower of Cousens. I wanted him to have an article so that who like him could read about him. Only midway through my research did I discover the Levy case. On the merits, even if I was some type of alternative medicine assassin, is there anything in the exact phrasing or construction of the controversy section that you object to? Are the three sources on which it's based not sufficient? YouReallyCan, there are currently 41 references in the article. Three of them focus on the controversy. The article is 4000 words long, of which just over 400 of them are about the controversy. I believe that is a good indicator of the appropriate weight I have given to the subject. I sincerely ask you to give the article a close second look.

I appreciate the offer to crop the picture. I have been in contact with the woman in that photograph through email and she did not object to its use. Is there a reason it needs to be cropped? Ocaasi^{t | c} 13:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say, "but if anyone who knows my work was going to accuse me of bias, it would be to say that I am too kind and too inclusive of the works of alternative medicine topics.", thats nice and your comments speak well of you - and your strong desire to replace an OTRS and AFD removed contentious article might well succeed, but that will not stop it being turned slowly slowly into the same kind of article it was previous. Its common knowledge that on en wikipedia there is a strong anti alternative medicine aspect to the whole sector of content and that policy is not strong enough, or complied with enough, to defend a neutral report and that is why I still strongly support this livings persons request for the en wikipedia project to not host a biography on him. As for the picture, whether or not she objects to appearing forever in a wikipedia article, she is not the subject of the article, and she is not a notable person and imo is better cropped out of the picture. My reading of Wikipedia:IMAGES appears to point towards support for this position. Youreallycan 15:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have viewed the OTRS ticket and there was no follow-up that I can see from the Foundation. It was just Cousens expressing his view, exactly as he did at the AfD. That AfD was based on a completely different article than the draft I wrote, which I believe resolved the notability, one event, and neutrality issues. As for what happens if this article goes live, neither deletion nor page protection is designed to preemptively protect articles from turning the wrong way. If needed, that is what semi-protection or full-protection are for. Needless to say, I will keep a close eye on this article assuming it is created, and concerned editors will have to strive to maintain its neutrality, just like on any controversial article. Also, thank you for your consideration of my background and intent here. It sounds like your objection is not based so much on the particular article I wrote but on your broader concerns about BLP policy and its enforcement. If that's a fair description, then I can only suggest that we are constrained to avoid WP:HARM to subjects but also to follow policy and to summarize reliable sources. If I have done that faithfully, then I believe the article should be created, and then watched carefully, rather than kept out of the encyclopedia.

I'm not particularly concerned about the image either way. If we need to crop it, that's fine.Ocaasi^{t | c} 16:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate. Sometimes I establish notability on the basis of WP:AUTHOR by citing several book reviews (see Adam Berinsky, Robert Martensen, and Johnathan Oberlander). So I searched and I found a few book reviews on his books. On the basis of that, and other coverage talking about how he is culturally influential, the guy sure seems notable to me per WP:CREATIVE. Jesanj (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By normal criteria, there was no need to bring this issue to DRV, the work that has gone into this article is excellent and no discussion is needed. This is not normal, though. The DRVs opening statement, "The article was previously deleted due to lack of notability" says much more than was intended. The closer said nothing about notability, and editors at the AfD that used the word "notable" give no evidence that they did any research into whether or not this topic is notable. There is plenty of evidence in the new article that the topic was notable at the time of the first AfD. What we have is broad AfD consensus that the article failed WP:NPOV. The continuation of this line of thought is expressed by a further statement at this DRV, "we are constrained to avoid WP:HARM to subjects but also to follow policy". Well, here is the problem, if as a group we don't have a functional understanding of the word "wp:notability", can we trust ourselves to do no WP:HARM and to follow policy"? Several times at Wikipedia I have found myself quoting, "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." I don't recall anyone saying, "I agree." The fact is that there are no constraints for the assertion "we are constrained...to follow policy". I am going to make a policy-based argument, the policy being WP:IAR, that the doctor be invited to participate in this discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been in touch with Gabriel Cousens' assistant, as Cousens is out of the country temporarily. The assistant was pleased with the effort that went into the new draft, but thought it focused too much on nutrition and not on spirituality, which I attempted to remedy with new sources I discovered. He was also very critical of the Phoenix New Times source, the accuracy of which he disputed. I encouraged him to publish a formal response to that article on the Tree of Life website, and they are considering it. Hopefully Cousens will find the new article an improvement and drop his objection. If not, it will have to be considered in light of the article's sourcing and neutrality. Ocaasi^{t | c} 12:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards allow recreation here. The new article isn't perfect, but to my mind it does enough to a) overcome the previous reasons for deletion, b) establish notability and c) avoid creating any major BLP issues by presenting the controversy neutrally as only a small part of a longer article about Cousens's career. We will of course have to be very careful to make sure it stays neutral, but we have the ability to do that so that isn't a barrier to recreation. Alzarian16 (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. My own view is that while the concerns of article subjects should be carefully taken into account when dealing with article content they should not be able to opt out of having an article if they meet the ordinary notability criteria. Notability is already difficult to judge without adding a new standard of "too notable to veto having an article" to keep track of. In this case, the new draft sufficiently addresses the concerns that led to deletion that recreation without prejudice to any new AfD is appropriate. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.