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. The argument that there is not sufficient coverage in reliable sources to give an accurate portrayal as required by WP:BLP is perhaps not the most common, but I find it persuasive. The arguments by Gatoclass et. al, has shown coverage weakly sufficient to establish notability. However, I am persuaded by the argumentation that the sourcing falls short of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV requirements for an accurate portrayal to such a degree that it's not possible to write a policy conforming article. henrik•talk 11:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Eden[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Donna Eden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any substantial notability; article uses dubious and self-published sources for all information about her (the NCCAM source is just used for a definition, and is arguably WP:SYNTH, since it doesn't actually discuss Eden's ideas). Seems like a marginal article at best, and lack of good sources is likely an insurmountable problem, which a look at Google Scholar and Books only confirms.

It's probably also worth noting that the lack of any reliable sources gives this article major WP:BLP issues. 86.** IP (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an article in a newspaper and a review of a book meets up to the requirement of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources as per WP:GNG. As an author I don't think WP:AUTHOR has been met either. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if any of these sources are sufficient to establish WP:N. None of these sources are of themselves notable. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not, and there are other issues with using such sources. Third Age is not a reliable medical source and just seems to be advertising her book, Reiki-land is a blog and the Romanian website just seems to give a quick synopsis of what her book is about. This all falls under WP:PROMOTION and is not WP:RS and certainly not WP:MEDRS. Famousdog (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are not going find an article on "Energy medicine" in a "reliable medical source". Energy medicine is clearly WP:FRINGE medicine but that doesn't mean either it or its principle advocates must necessarily be non-notable. Gatoclass (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.kinesiologie-welt.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29%3Aenergiemedizin-fuer-frauen&catid=24 is a review in a German applied-kinesiology online journal. While mostly favorable, it is definitely not a PR piece. Kdammers (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think if she had a notable international profile decent sources should exist. This Bernie Siegel also seems non-notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the first [5] reference in the article. It's clear that Eden's importance has been exaggerated for the purpose of promoting a yoga-business. As for the "Prestigious" Nautilus Book Awards [6], this looks like yet another non-notable book-marketing business --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this? [7], it seems to be yet another promotional puff-peice. In this case, promoting the fact that this person will be speaking at a local event. This is advertising disguised as news. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is substantial coverage in secondary sources, not reprinted press releases. That link isn't good enough to show notability. 86.** IP (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[8] paywalled but free snippet has Well, then, its high time you shake the stupor and get your energy moving again, and we know a coffee run is no long-term answer. Donna Eden, energy... Bermuda Royal Gazette [9] has her listed in the company of Deepak Chopra etc. (free). Lots of Miami Herald mentions - generally for lectures. More then 30 of the articles arejust book-signing stuff. [10] paywalled StL Post-Dispatch - snippet A pioneer in the field of energy medicine for more than two decades, Donna Eden has taught people worldwide how to understand the body as an ... but may also be a book-signing bit.
The hits on Google Scholar seem far more definitive however. Collect (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are not sources that can be used to write an article. These appear to be press releases, and do not show any major notability. 86.** IP (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For Author - published by major publishing houses, cited by others, significant sales = sufficient notability. In the case at hand; all three of these are present. Cheers. And I did not think the cites in Google Scholar were "press releases" by the way. Collect (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So far the article has only one reliable non-primary source. The article has been tagged with multiple issues for the last 4 years. It seems unlikely that the sources exist to create an article. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IRWolfie-, could you state (in the article's talk-page) which of the sources you feel are not acceptable. Irrespective of whether this article is deleted we should probably clean up inappropriate sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment there are 2 sources: her personal web page, which is definitely not WP:RS, and an advert for one of her workshops dressed-up as a news article in a local Florida paper. Neither of these is the type of "hard" source that BLPs require. Agricola44 (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Agreed. I'm happy to edit these out. I think in the end we will find that there are no reliable sources that establish Donna Eden's notability. Can anybody provide a rationale for retaining these sources? --Salimfadhley (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last time I checked, being "less well known than Deepak Chopra" was not a disqualification under the guidelines. Gatoclass (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you've unfortunately missed the point. When all the promotional nonsense is stripped away (there's no shortage of it here), the notability question hinges on whether there are sufficient sources. The point is, then, that there are other established BLPs whose sourcing statistics serve as objective "yardsticks" for this case and Chopra is one of the examples showing that, if assessing on the basis of book holdings (a commonly-used indicator here), we expect stats in the thousands for "mass market" books. Eden is nowhere near this. Agricola44 (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • That Eden is doing "new age metaphysics not science" is not a valid reason for deletion; the only question here is whether or not Eden has sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, and I think she does. Gatoclass (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What you've said sounds compelling until you drill down a bit. First, there's no notability in having a book reviewed by Publishers Weekly. That's a trade magazine whose mission is essentially to do just that and they publish reviews on about 7K books every year (see our WP article). It's misleading to imply that such reviews are on par with a review in something like Nature, which is highly selective. Second, many of the "newspaper" articles are actually adverts in disguise. For example, the one you cite in the Ashland paper is for a paid workshop, "Tickets: $25 in advance at...", the one in Petersburg Times is likewise, "Cost of Eden's workshop is $20 in advance", and the one in the Telegram is advertising for an appearance at the "Natural Living Expo". Again, I think it's misleading for you to characterize these as "legitimate" WP:RS. Are there any sources not related to promotion? Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • As I said in the last AFD, subscribers to Publisher's Weekly according to the Wiki article include "6000 publishers; 5500 public libraries and public library systems; 3800 booksellers; 1600 authors and writers; 1500 college and university libraries; 950 print, film and broad media; and 750 literary and rights agents, among others, which sounds reputable enough to me. Gatoclass (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh...you're confusing "reputability" with "selectivity". Nobody accused Publishers Weekly of not being reputable. However, it is patently not selective. They review something like 150 books every week! That's surely a large fraction of all the books published, so it's in no way "notable" to have such reviews. I'll be embarrassed for you if you keep arguing this line. Agricola44 (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Your claim that Publishers Weekly reviews "a large fraction of all the books published" is obviously speculative. I'm not sure what criterion is used for book reviews at PW, however, Eden's book Energy Medicine was also reviewed by Library Journal and Booklist, both of which only review books deemed of interest to libraries, and both of which appear only to list those books which are positively received by their reviewers, so there are clearly selection processes in place at these journals. Gatoclass (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you seem to be totally unaware that these are all trade publications (not journals) that review enormous numbers of "mass market" books. There's no notability conferred by having reviews in such outlets. Perhaps this would set things in perspective: By your argument, we would be having to create pages for around 150 new mass market authors per week just because they got a Publishers Weekly review. Patent nonsense, that is. Agricola44 (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
With all due respect, I'm getting a little tired of your patronizing comments ("seem to be totally unaware", "embarrassed for you", "confusing the issue" etc). I said I didn't know what selection processes are in place at PW, but that there are clearly selection processes in place for the other two journals, a point you failed to respond to except to argue they are "trade publications". Gatoclass (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel tired, but again I point out that you apparently haven't familiarized yourself with your own argumentative points. These are trade publications. Example: the first sentence in Library Journal is, "Library Journal is a trade publication..." (emphasis added). I can only repeat what anyone who is familiar with the publishing industry already knows: Listings and reviews in such publications are a routine part of the business and confer no notability whatsoever. That is why they do not appear in WP notability criteria. It is clear that the notability question for Eden's particular case now falls down to whether she passes WP:GNG. And for that, there will have to be multiple substantive sources that discuss her (and these don't count adverts for her workshops, etc.). My friendly advice to you would be to try and find sources and abandon this bit about being reviewed in Publishers Weekly et al. because it's a dead end. Agricola44 (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Where does it say in WP:GNG that "trade publications" cannot be used to establish notability? Gatoclass (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm the one who's growing weary. WP:GNG requires sources that discuss the person in substantive detail. This requirement immediately implies an enormous list of things that do not count toward notability, like routine reviews in non-selective trade publications and promotional newspaper adverts, both of which you've pushed hard. I really think the debate would be served well if you were to drop this line and try instead to find substantive sources that discuss her. I couldn't. Agricola44 (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • I think the issue is that it appears we're looking at an echo chamber in the mentions of her in other books - a small group of people, none of whom is notable, talk about each other a bit, but without any notability outside of their tiny group of proponents of the specific fringe ideas. I've seen no evidence of any sources of any real quality; just being mentioned by non-notable people in non-notable publications a couple times, and having a few press releases published surely doesn't add up to notability. 86.** IP (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, it seems we have somebody who is well known amongst a clique which is not itself very notable. The Energy Kinesiology community is a very small subset of what is already a fringe movement who seem to promote each other's events. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have already done so. Please feel free to nominate additional users whom you feel would benefit from being informed. --Salimfadhley (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Third Age.com is an unreliable fringe source. The daily tidings is a tiny newspaper with less than 2000 readers apparently: Ashland_Daily_Tidings, the seattle story is actually from a writer from Daily Tidings. Your royal gazette link didn't point anywhere. stagustine.com appears to be another small time newspaper. These all appear to be standard small time newspaper mentions, remember that wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOT#NEWS. The category you referred to was according to amazon rankings and in a specific fringe category. According to WP:AUTHOR we look for enduring notability not temporary notability. Since the "books have dropped considerably lower now" that shows that she has little enduring notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Third Age.com is an unreliable fringe source
It's called Third Age.com not New Age.com. It's a magazine aimed at female baby boomers, and it clearly has a strong editorial board composed of journalists and academics, as a look at its editorial page will confirm.
The daily tidings is a tiny newspaper with less than 2000 readers apparently
Where in WP:V does it say that a source cannot be considered reliable if it has a small readership?
[The Seattle Times] story is actually from a writer from Daily Tidings
So? The Times is a reliable source, and it saw fit to print the article. That is all that matters.
The category you referred to was according to amazon rankings and in a specific fringe category
Naturopathy is not a "fringe" category - it is a major alternative therapy with accredited courses in a number of countries.
According to WP:AUTHOR we look for enduring notability not temporary notability
I don't know whether Eden will secure "enduring notability" for her work and neither do you; however, in my experience that is a policy caveat routinely ignored on this project. Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if you go to the Royal Gazette page and type "donna eden" (with quote marks) in the search box the articles will come up. Gatoclass (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of Naturopathy is considered to be quackery, so yes it is fringe. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, WP:CRYSTALBALL, we look for notability now, You appear to be suggesting we ignore the notability requirements but I fail to see why. I mention the tiny size of The daily tidings as you are trying to use it to establish notability, it is a relevant metric. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not you think naturopathy is "quackery", my point is that naturopathy is not a minor phenomenon but is hugely popular - my local drug store, for example, has almost as much shelf space devoted to naturopathic remedies as it does to conventional medicines. So scoring the No. 2 spot on Amazon's Naturopathy booklist could be considered a significant achievement. Gatoclass (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Gato, with all due respect, it's irrelevant to this discussion how much shelf space your local drug store gives to such books. Moreover, Amazon category rankings are not admissible. Please refer to established sources like the WorldCat stats above. They're not impressive. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I was referring to naturopathic remedies not "books", as anecdotal evidence of the popularity of naturopathy. But I won't quibble with regard to the usefulness of Amazon rankings. I do however note that the notability threshold for a book at WP:NBOOK is that it should be catalogued by the Library of Congress and "be available at a dozen or more libraries". Apart from being so catalogued, Eden's Energy Medicine appears to be available at something like 200 libraries across the US alone, including 16 university and numerous college libraries. It has also been the subject of several independent book reviews. That would seem to be a sufficient indication of notability to me. Gatoclass (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but now your confusing the issue of Eden's notability as a person with the asserted notability of one of her books. They're not the same thing. The notability of an author of a book, as judged by her books' institutional holdings (as you seem to be arguing), are conventionally taken to be satisfied if holdings are in the thousands for "mass market" books. Here it is in a nutshell. At the time this article was created (4 years ago), BLP notability was much lower than it is now. The rising standard is simply a result of community consensus. Given the guidelines that are now in force, she does not pass any of the obvious tests, e.g. WP:PROF (no demonstrable impact), WP:GNG (lacking sources), etc. Agricola44 (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I am not "confusing" anything. The fact that someone has written a notable book obviously factors into their own notability. Gatoclass (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the very fact that there are separate notability guidelines for books (WP:NBOOK) versus the people who write them (WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF, etc.) means precisely that they are judged separately. There certainly is a correlation, but I think the disconnect here is your assumption that Energy Medicine is itself notable. It's not. WorldCat shows only ~140 institutional holdings, which is very low for a mass market book. LOC cataloging is also not notable because that is a routine part of the commercial publishing process. I'll repeat here my good faith and gentle advice given above: Eden is clearly not notable for her scholarship/publishing activities and she'll pass, if at all, only on WP:GNG, which primarily requires substantive sources about her. Your case will be best served by trying to find those sources. I couldn't. WADR, Agricola44 (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
How many of those "millions" of new age authors are published by Penguin? How many have books high on the list in their respective categories on amazon? How many have had their books acquired by scores of libraries? How many have been described as bestselling authors by numerous third party reliable sources? Gatoclass (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I checked my London borough's library system: There are no copies of any of Eden's books in any branch. I checked the search engine on Penguin.co.uk - Donna Eden does not appear to be listed on their main imprint. I could see no indication on Amazon that this book had any enduring status on the best-seller list. In short even if these were suitable criteria for notability (they aren't) they do not pass verification. I'm forced to hold my original conclusion which is that Donna Eden is not a well-known person outside of her own community. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A four year old book that is still listed in the 1200s on Amazon's booklist has no "enduring status"? That is some pretty tough criteria you must be applying. I wonder how many authors can boast of having a book in Amazon's top 1200 four years after publication? Gatoclass (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the timescales of a book 4 years is a short time, her books printed 10 years ago seem more relevant. You cite her being in the top 1200 in amazon, yet not all the writers in the top 100 have their own articles, so this seems irrelevant. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Wheres her birth date, town she grew up in, career, qualifications, education, etc etc?? Even if the article is kept due to a few sources which mention her energy medicine, the page does not look like a biography article, it looks like promotion. GreenUniverse (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the page needs work. I think with the recent sources I and other users have turned up, somebody could do an appropriate rewrite. The fact that the page is currently a bit of a mess though, is not a reason for deletion. Gatoclass (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of those sources have now been shown to be adverts for her workshops. Agricola44 (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
That she is involved in quackery is irrelevant to the points against the article. The sources shown were all newspaper clippings from minor or unreliable sources, wiki isn't a newspaper, these are sources which probably can't even be used for anything, the mentioned thirdage.com is completely unreliable. Erich von Däniken on the other hand has very firm notability with individuals like Carl Sagan writing about him. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted as I think your edits made her sound like a crank, and might prejudice potential contributors to this AFD. Assuming the article survives the AFD, I will be fully rewriting it since I have already gone to the trouble of finding sources for it. Gatoclass (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still Delete [duplicate !vote] Gatoclass, it seems since I last checked this AfD that you have done a good job of increasing the quantity of sources mentioning Eden, but not the quality of sources. As far as I can see the new sources simply suffer from exactly the same problems (mainly being promotional or press releases) as the old ones. She is not simply "less well known than Deepak Chopra." She is in fact an order of magnitude at least "less well known than Deepak Chopra." That "Energy medicine is recognized as an alternative therapy by the US government agency NCCAM" is irrelevant to whether Eden herself is notable. Also, I'd like to add into the mix that this article seems to show a severe American bias and WP is, last time I checked, a global encyclopedia. I searched WorldCat for copies of Energy Medicine in the UK, Germany, New Zealand and several other countries and found only a handful of copies. Literally countable on the fingers of one hand. This woman is only known in fringe circles, only cited by fringe authors, only written about in local (American) rags and only when she's promoting a book or a workshop. DELETE Famousdog (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Deepak Chopra is one of the best known people on the entire planet, I still find your comparison pointless. And while the sources may not be ideal, I disagree that they are "promotional" - they are not PR releases and they are not advertising, they are simply profiles that the sources in question chose to run. And your argument that she is not notable because she is not well known outside the US is nonsensical, there is no requirement in WP:GNG for the subject to be well known globally. Gatoclass (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha! He might be well known among viewers of Oprah, but i guarantee you that a good portion of humanity doesn't know who the hell Chopra is. Far, far fewer will have heard of Eden. Famousdog (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Gatoclass, your stated rationale for undoing my changes is not has no basis in WP policy. The changes could not have influenced this AFD since there is no wikipedia policy against having articles about (as you say) cranks. I do agree, that the sources (particularly Ashland Tidings) give the impression of an individual with unorthodox beliefs. I do not understand why you object to using the article in a way which reflects it's actual content! --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because you cherry picked the oddest-sounding quotes you could find and presented them in a totally decontexutalized manner. The relevant policy is WP:NPOV (not to mention WP:BLP). Gatoclass (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Eden appears to be a fringe theroy promoter or not is irrelivant to this AFD since no policy forbids pages about fringe topics. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Eden said it, and it can be verified, it can stay. If you want to balance it out with some of her less "cranky" pronouncements, go ahead, but don't just delete stuff she actually said because it makes her sound like a wack-job. That's her fault for saying it, no?
Oh, and I still think this argument is irrelevant because this article should be deleted. [duplicate !vote] You've had quite long enough (4 years) to prove that this woman is worthy of article in a global encyclopedia and the efforts so far to prove her notability have been pretty weak. Famousdog (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't author this article, and just because I happen to have !voted "keep" on it at AFD does not make me personally responsible for fixing it. Having said that, in all likelihood I will be rewriting the article after this AFD if only to save myself the trouble of having to return to this debate. Gatoclass (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are motivated to fix the article please do so. Even if the article is deleted it can always be re-added if the new version substantially addresses the concerns with the original article. I am personally skeptical that it is possible to write a decent article about Donna Eden simply because of the paucity of reliable sources about her. Don't let my skepticism get in the way of you trying! --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apology and comment Gatoclass, sorry I didn't mean to personalise this disagreement by saying "you (specifically) 've had quite long enough..." That was a poor choice of words and i meant to say that the authors/defenders generally of this article have had sufficient time to establish notability. However, I agree with Agricola that you are confusing the notability of an author with the (alleged) notability of (some, or one of) her books. Earlier in this discussion you also (seem to) have argued that because the field of energy medicine is notable, Eden is. What this all adds up to for me, is that Eden's book itself might deserve an article, or deserves to be used as a source in the energy medicine article as one of the "seminal" works on the topic, but none of it necessitates an article on her. If it does, wouldn't WP rapidly fill up with stub articles saying: "Person X is an author. S/he wrote insert name of book here" which would be no more helpful than a simple redirect. Famousdog (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Eden is "pretty near the bottom" in the field, why do her books come out on top on the topic of "Energy Medicine" on amazon.com? Why do we have multiple sources describing her as a "bestselling author"? You say that "one review is not sufficient" but I also listed reviews of her Energy Medicine, from Library Journal and Booklist, did you not see those?
Agricola above stated that a mass market publication must get "thousands" of institutional holdings before it can be considered notable, but I can find nothing in policy to validate this claim. In fact, all NBOOK seems to say on the issue is that at minimum there should be "a dozen" institutional holdings before a book can be considered notable. WorldCat records that Eden's Energy Medicine returns 227 institutional holdings in the US,[41] while her Energy Medicine for Women returns 348.[42] That seems like a pretty respectable number of holdings to me. Energy Medicine has also been translated into five languages.[43] Gatoclass (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments (sorry this is probably getting tedious now) DGG, while I agree with your opinion that this article should be deleted [duplicate !vote] your argument that Publishers Weekly is "selective" doesn't work. PW is a US-based trade magazine for the publishing industry and therefore probably "selective" for US publications (like Eden's, which as I've argued previously, don't have much of a presence outside the US). If you factor in that every country on earth probably has a trade magazine for the local book trade (e.g. The Bookseller in the UK), I bet you can find a review of pretty much any "of the English language books published" in the trade mag for its local market. That's why trade journals are not RS. They are promoting sh*t. Non-RS links cannot and should not be used to establish notability.

Gatoclass, at the risk of incurring your ire, you still seem to be using the argument "notable book = notable author". But your arguments regarding the notability of the book rest on numbers in libraries or rankings on Amazon. Amazon is in the business of books and how they rank them is mired in mystery, so that's not a good argument. Regarding numbers in libraries, there are lots of copies of the UK phone directory in libraries, but its not a notable work of literature. Numbers of copies doesn't = notability. Although the two factors are probably correlated, other factors such as price come into it. Also, politically-motivated organisations such as the Discovery Institute can flood libraries with propagandist crap like this further distorting that connection. I'm not suggesting that this is the case here, just trying to explain why this argument is problematic.

What I actually think is going on here is this: If some hack were to write a book about a quite obscure topic about which there were few books available, it would undoubtedly become "seminal" in that field by the simple fact of its availability in the absence of other books. Maybe Eden's book is incorrect, full of errors or misrepresents energy medicine completely? How would we know? The fact that it is widely available and aggressively promoted means little as to whether the book or the author is notable. Your argument is further watered down to: "widely available book (or only book in field) = notable book = notable author". This is not good enough.

How about this: Look at her co-authors. She has collaborated with David Feinstein on 3 of her 4 books. Yet he doesn't have an article. How do we know the ideas presented in these books are Eden's and not Feinstein's? Maybe Eden is a ghost-writer? Maybe Feinstein is? We don't know anything about this person because reliable references to her are so scant. What about her other co-author, Gary Craig? He doesn't have an article either and his name simply redirects to Emotional Freedom Techniques, the particular subject with which he is connected. Donna Eden should similarly redirect to Energy medicine because she is a proponent of that (possibly notable) idea, but not seemingly notable in her own right. Famousdog (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If some hack were to write a book about a quite obscure topic about which there were few books available, it would undoubtedly become "seminal" in that field
Not at all. Books written by "hacks", regardless of topic, seldom get endorsements in reliable sources. And right now, I am still finding endorsements of Eden and her work in reliable sources which indicate she is a widely recognized figure in her field. I will try to find time to post a list of them in the next day or two assuming this AFD is still open. Gatoclass (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Gato, all this hoo-hah could have been avoided if only we were able to provide a decent set of reliable sources as to this author's notability. I think if these sources actually existed we would have found them by now. None of the sources we've presented so far amount to more than a random mention (e.g. Seattle Times) and a bunch of advertorials. Her books have never been reviewed by the mainstream press and her opinion does not seem to be often-cited, even amongst her own community. In summary, a minor figure in a minor discipline. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology lists her works among its "major references".[44] Gatoclass (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we now going to try testimonials from obscure organizations in the business of expensive certification for "energy healing"? If that's the case, then I think we can all assume that all possible avenues to getting WP:RS have been exhausted. Agricola44 (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Indeed, we seem to be going round in circles. I do not think the The Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology is itself WP:N or a WP:RS. The problem has always been a lack of credible sources attesting to Eden's notability. If these sources existed we might have used them by now. For reference, here's an example of a very obscure writer who satisfies the notability grounds simply because of mainstream reviews Frank Key. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ACEP's board appears to be made up of qualified psychologists and other health professionals.[45] So why wouldn't this organization be considered reliable - because they have an approach to their discipline you happen not to like? Gatoclass (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'fraid you're Barking up the wrong tree again. Whether they're reliable is irrelevant because (see numerous arguments above not worth repeating yet again). Agricola44 (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Gato, you can answer this question yourself. Simply apply the usual standards: WP:N, WP:RS. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ACEP Qualified psychologists? Don't make me laugh. A search of WP only turns up four pages mentioning ACEP. Nobody notable. Non-notable organisation with non-notable members in the business of promoting quackery. Unless you can turn up those reliable sources you don't "have time" to post I think we're done here. DELETE Famousdog (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you appear to have misinterpreted my reason for posting that link, it wasn't intended as a source for the article, but as a response to salimfadhley's claim that Eden "does not seem to be often-cited, even amongst her own community ... a minor figure in a minor discipline." The ACEP list demonstrates that in fact her works are regarded as seminal by what appears to be the most reputable organization working in the field of energy medicine. Gatoclass (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I second the motion. It's safe to assume that, at this point, everything that can be found has been found and that it's now time for an admin to weigh the evidence either for or against. Agricola44 (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Um, excuse me, but you don't get to "move to close" an AFD, it will be closed by an uninvolved admin at the appropriate time. Apart from which, I already signalled my intention to present more sources in support of this article, which I intend to do shortly, and I request that the AFD not be closed until I have done so. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really a sign of notability. We already knew that a small group of proponents of fringe medical ideas were citing each other, but just saying the publishers are major ones doesn't show the books are notable, or even necessarily mark them as reliable sources. If you could show that anyone outside this rather incestuous circle has taken the slightest interest in Eden, that would do more than showing short mentions in nonnotable books, by non-notable people. 86.** IP (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your attempts to defend those referemces are kind of bizarre - She gets a short mention in a couple books by fringe proponents. The books aren't notable; the authors of the books aren't notable, but because the publishers are, apparently that sends notability back all the way to Eden. 86.** IP (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it's your own reasoning that is "kind of bizarre", given that you are now claiming a source cannot be reliable unless it is also notable, an assertion nowhere supported by WP:V. Gatoclass (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gato, you're the one arguing that reliability or reputability also mean notability and this is patently false, as has been pointed-out quite a few times above. Please stop, as this is wasting lots of time and cluttering the discussion. Please hear me one final time: It is irrelevant to an author's notability whether her publisher is "reputable". Agricola44 (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment There are unsupported assertions here that give a false impression. For example, " ACEP Qualified psychologists? Don't make me laugh. " followed by a running down of ACEP by saying ACEP is really mentioned and then saying it is promotion of quackery. I looked at the actual people listed in the reference: There are people with PhDs from respected US universities. so, yes, the people listed are qualified psychologists. The rest veers off-topic as a means of supporting the assertion. A second example is the assertion that Eden is essentially only [if at all] of significance in America ["I searched WorldCat for copies of Energy Medicine in the UK, Germany, New Zealand and several other countries and found only a handful of copies. Literally countable on the fingers of one hand. This woman is only known in fringe circles, only cited by fringe authors, only written about in local (American) rags and only when she's promoting a book or a workshop. "]. I already gave a German book review above. In addition, using a German search engine [Allesklar], I found a Swiss psychologist and practitioner of alternative medicine commenting on Eden [49], including quoting a founder of the American Holistic Medical Association touting energy medicine. [50]; there are translations into German of two books by her listed at Amazon.de [and two Spanish translations at Amazon.es]; A quick search in KVK [a German tool rather than WorldCat, which is American] of European academic libraries came up with more than ten copies in just Germany, with more books in Italy, Spain, Scandinavia, Poland, and the Netherlands [including Dutch, Danish, and Polish translations]; there are also some "practitioners" who say they base their work on Eden, and a forum that discusses one of her books. Now, this is not massive and not the sort of sites we use for citations, but it does discredit the assertions I quoted.Kdammers (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a psychologist, I find the idea that ACEP has any credibility as an association representing psychologists totally laughable, but you're right, it was unsupported, I'm just venting my frustration at how this AfD is getting dragged out unnecessarily. If you make this article about Eden & Feinstein's book or energy medicine generally and I have no problem with it. Lets look at the new evidence you and Gatoclass have presented: You have found a website of a Swiss psychologist (and some other websites of alt-med practitioners, apparently) that are no doubt all promotional, the "German review" you point to is in an Applied kinesiology magazine and says that Eden's book contains too much criticism! Hardly an RS in this case. The fact that her books are reviewed or translated makes the same "notable book = notable author" mistake previously discussed. Translation of books is more about the business of selling books by expanding into new markets than any notability on her part (again, I'm not saying her book(s) aren't notable, just her). Gatoclass has produced some (mainly fringe) therapy manuals that cite her, one of which (Ruden) actually mentions her specifically but is written by a practitioner of EDMR, Energy medicine and Emotional Freedom Techniques (google him). More fringey fringeness... The chapter by Feinstein that mentions Eden raises COI issues because he's Eden's long-time collaborator. So to summarise: Find "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" that discusses Eden specifically that is not promotional and does not involve a conflict-of-interest and she can have an article on WP. Otherwise, I can too. Famousdog (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Feinstein is a collaborator of Eden's, but the publisher is an independent third party which presumably reviewed Feinstein's contribution and approved it. Gatoclass (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed]. 86.** IP (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Publishers publish. Reviewers review. Editors edit... and books are not peer-reviewed in the way that journal articles are, so this is yet another attempt to argue that because a reputable publisher has printed out lots of copies of a book in order to sell it, that their notability somehow trickles down and confers notability on a person who gets the scantest mention in a chapter written by a mate of hers! Famousdog (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are reliable sources, regardless of how you spin it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your rationale is clear. I believe that it's based on a misinterpretation of the above policy. Eden's work is neither significant nor well-known. Her collected work is mostly ignored. She has not been the subject of any notable books, reviews or films. None of the sources that say anything about us pass the tests of WP:RS, WP:N. Sources which are themseles WP:QS or WP:FRINGE in nature cannot be used to establish notability of a subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me again put Gato's claims in context. Per WP:AUTHOR, "...multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", with emphasis added on the operative word independent. The routine trade publication reviews that are executed for umpteen thousand books per year in order to promote their sales to bookstores, libraries, and other outlets is emphatically not what this requirement refers to (as discussed at length above). Per citations, "...is widely cited by peers..." means that one can check in the various standard databases and count citations. This was already reported above: she has published only 1 paper (Feinstein and Eden, 2008 Alt. Ther. Health Med.) that has only 5 citations. What Gato is basically doing is Special pleading to hold Eden's notability case to a different standard than all the other author/professor/researcher/medical BLPs that come through AfD. Agricola44 (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Normally, I state my POV in a debate and have little else to say; on this page however, my remarks have been misrepresented with such regularity that I've felt obliged to respond simply in order to defend myself. Now I'm being accused of "special pleading", which is absolute nonsense - I quoted the relevant policies and stated why I believe those criteria have been met, nothing more. With regard to the other comments - salimfadhley states that Eden's works are "neither significant nor well known", but a bestseller by definition is "well known", and Eden's book Energy Medicine is routinely referred to as a bestseller, made it to #5 on the LA Times "Healthy Bestseller" list, and is still just outside the top #1000 bestselling books on Amazon four years after publication of the latest edition. It has also gone through five editions and been published in at least five languages.
Agricola's assertion that Publisher's Weekly and other "trade publications" are not "independent" was refuted by DGG, one of the most experienced contributors to AFD. DGG also refuted Agricola's attempt to marginalize Eden based on standards applied to medical researchers, stating that The standard of notability in a field like hers is not to be compared with that of medicine, an opinion with which I concur. Bottom line: she wrote a bestseller. Doesn't matter if the book is utter tosh, if it's a bestseller it is "well known" and if reviewed by multiple reliable sources, which it was, then the author qualifies under WP:AUTHOR. Gatoclass (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, let me see if I have this straight. We're going to accept that this woman has published medical research in the peer-reviewed literature (Feinstein and Eden, 2008 Alt. Ther. Health Med.), wrote a book which gives medical advice (the book "...promises to teach you to help heal yourself and others...", Amazon.com review) and which is called "Energy Medicine" and then we're going to turn around and assert that she should not be held to the same standards as those in the (presumably allopathic) medical field? I can't fathom this as anything else than baldface nonsense. She could have garnered numerous "keeps" and passed under GNG if acceptable sources about her could simply have been tendered. They were not, because they don't exist. (Assuming we're not mixing up "sources" in this context with "citations" by others to her work --- there are a few of those, but not many). No. Instead, Gato wants to basically go the route of PROF, which hinges basically on demonstrable impact of one's work. That's the argument being made by asserting notability of her books, her reviews in Publisher's Weekly, etc. However, the impact is not there, either. So, here we are at an impasse: Gato asserting notability by the impact of her work and others pointing out that this impact is far short of the usual levels we agree on for author/prof/researcher/doctor-types. All the information is in and everything beyond this is nothing more than repeating these distilled arguments, and therefore a waste of time. Could a disinterested admin please take over? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2012 (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.
More