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The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn, no delete calls. Non-admin closure. -- saberwyn 23:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Ullman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I am nominating this page for deletion because of my ongoing concern that Wikipedia is used to promote marginally notable figures in pseudoscience. I cannot find any independent reliable sources demonstrating this individual's notability, beyond the 20/20 interview alluded to in the text, which is certainly not flattering. A little digging shows that Mr. Ullman is not on the advisory board of Columbia University's center for alternative medicine[1]. I cannot find any reference to Harvard Med School even having a formal alternative medicine program (please correct me if I am wrong), nor the medical school of the University of Alaska. Finally, the article has strong COI problems, having been created at the behest of the subject (read the edit history) and having been edited by the subject himself. Skinwalker 21:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination per WP:SNOW. It is difficult to assess the notability of these people online due to extensive self-promotion. I will rewrite the article in the coming days using some of the references Pixelface cited. Skinwalker 23:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The fellow has numerous articles written about him. And more to the point pseudoscience is a WP:POV in many Incidences, not a reason for deletion. However, the piece does need a rewrite. Shoessss |  Chat  21:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Doh, strong keep. I don't believe in any of this bloke's stuff. But he's certainly noteable. Your grounds for AfD are flawed- if there are COI or POV problems, they can be fixed. It is already fixed as the article mentions his being disciplined for practicing medicine without a licence etc. Of course wikipedia shouldn't be used to "promote" "pseudoscience"- but you counter it by NPOV editing, in that way you can get the message out to readers. These sort of things should have articles if they're noteable/well known. If they're deleted due to bias, that's a dreadful shame and content lost that could be appreciated by readers that want an NPOV view of someone.Merkinsmum 21:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per above. COI and POV aren't reasons for deletion. This person seems to be very much notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 22:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the person could very well be a "kook", but I can find sources such as ABC News, mentions in Natural Health magazine and Whole Earth magazine, a newsletter of the "North Texas Skeptics", and a mention in Skeptical Inquirer magazine. A search in the Google News Archive turns up an article in the Santa Cruz Sentinel, Salon.com, TIME magazine, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Sun-Times 1987-05-03, Deseret News 1991-03-14, New York Times 1992-08-30, Philadelphia Inquirer 1992-11-02, Boston Globe 1993-02-26, Chicago Sun-Times 1993-07-19, Deseret News 1993-10-13, Washington Post 1995-12-05, Mothering magazine, and O magazine. I think some of those articles may cost to view online though. It looks like the article needs a heavy rewrite to make it NPOV, but the author appears notable to me. --Pixelface 22:51, 6 August 2007 (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.