From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2012 August 24
2012 August 26 >

25 August 2012

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
David R. Hawkins ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)
As one of the primary editors after article was recreated in July, I was not notified by the individual editor attempting to delete the page by numerous 'speedy deletes' and subsequently AfD. Author in question has been shown to be notable with Wikipedia Policy but that was not supported at AfD after article was 'deletionist' edited. The author is notable, sources were given and validated within the article, and that point had previously been stated by an admin in July on the article talk page. Further references have also shown the author to be within WP:GNG, WP:NOTE, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NTEMP guidelines and all his books were properly sourced according to WP:IRS, as was the original independent publisher of his books, etc. etc. Sources about author's life met the three core principles of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, and also WP:NRVE. The subject appears to exceed WP:NPF standard. Each "source" in contention should have been addressed individually with WP:BLPSOURCES and not deleted summarily by "one editor consensus" of sources. The author BLP has been a point of contention for some time, going back a number of years and needs to be treated properly. Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 06:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply

For those unfamiliar with Dr. David R. Hawkins or the previous discussions, he is the author of Power vs Force, shown here with endorsement from Wayne Dyer, and eight other books, one of which was co-authored with Dr. Linus Pauling, Nobel Prize recipient. Though his Wikipedia links were pulled, the authors book content is located in a topic section of the article Level of consciousness (Esotericism), discussed in outline. The author has since become a contentiously notable spiritualist working under the guise of science; skeptics regarding his work as pseudo-science, also having published various articles about him as well, which were included in the Wikipedia article prior to AfD.

Publication and Media:

His most recent interview in the mainstream media 2007:

Oprah Winfrey interviewing David R. Hawkins-Oprah & Friends Radio approximately 30 mins.
Barbara Walters Show Past Guest Bios (reposted at Oneness)- David R. Hawkins
National Television Appearances:
Notable endorsements by public figures:
  • "...a beautiful gift of writing...you spread, joy, love and compassion with what you write. The fruit of these three things being 'compassion'." Mother Teresa
  • "...a significant contribution to understanding and dealing with the problems we face today!" Lee Iacocca
  • "I especially appreciate [the] research and presentations on the attractor patterns in business... Sam Walton
  • "Perhaps the most significant and important work I have read in the last ten years..." Dr. Wayne Dyer
Books:
Hawkins, David R.; Pauling, Linus (1973). Orthomolecular Psychiatry: Treatment of Schizophrenia. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co. ISBN  0-716-70898-1
  • Hawkins, David R. (1995, 2002). Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior. Carlsbad, California; London: Hay House. ISBN  1-561-70933-6
  • Hawkins, David R. (1996). Goodbye, Scorpion; Farewell, Black Widow Spider: How to Avoid the Stings and Bites of the Southwest's Dangerous Arachnids - And What to Do If You Don't. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN  0-964-32612-4
  • Hawkins, David R. (1998). Dialogues on Consciousness and Spirituality. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN  0-964-32617-5
  • Hawkins, David R. (2001). The Eye of the I. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN  0-964-32619-1
  • Hawkins, David R. (2003). I: Reality and Subjectivity. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN  0-971-50071-1
  • Hawkins, David R. (2005). Truth vs. Falsehood: How to Tell the Difference. Toronto: Axial Publishing. ISBN  0-971-50073-8
  • Hawkins, David R. (2005). Transcending the Levels of Consciousness: The Stairway to Enlightenment. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN  0-9715007-4-6
  • Hawkins, David R. (2006). Devotional Nonduality. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN  0-9715007-6-2
Though cross-language projects do not have always the same guidelines, it can be noted that the German project has a bio of this American author at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_R._Hawkins, which as a result of the English AfD closure, two editors involved in this closure have since targeted across language projects to delete it as well. This would seem to imply undue bias.
Policy WP:NRVE clearly states: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet..." if contested "...if it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.".

There are a large number of search links to both primary and secondary sources for Dr. Hawkins, his writings, his lectures, as well as video interviews including discussion with Deepak Chopra and other contemporaries. The editors targeting this for deletion appear biased or misinformed, also regarding proper policy application -- Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 07:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • (After an edit conflict, during which the nomination statement was both lengthened and toned down): Although a long, rambling nomination statement that includes a bibliography and is replete with accusations about deletionist editors isn't normally a very good sign, and although the discussion was closed in accordance with a clear consensus, it strikes me that there may be a genuine case to answer here. If you look at de:David R. Hawkins you can see a list of awards he's received:- A "Huxley Award" (which appears to relate to schizophrenia), the Physician's Recognition Award of the American Medical Association (which does appear to mean more than just "has qualified as a doctor"), the Orthomolecular Medicine Hall of Fame 2006 (and I've found a source to back that up), and the 50-year Distinguished Life Fellow's Honor of the American Psychiatric Association, whatever that might mean. Now to me, and contrary to the assertions made in the AfD, this does look like the biography of a chap who's at the end of a long and distinguished career in psychiatric medicine. The sort of scholar who might well merit a Wikipedia article. While I intend no criticism of the closer who did exactly what he was supposed to do, I think we could be looking at a defective discussion.— S Marshall T/ C 09:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply
The huxley institute is a group that advocates vitamins etc for curing Schizophrenia. The "orthomolecular" group is a similar fringe group. These aren't distinguished or notable awards. The American Medical Association (AMA) Physician's Recognition Award (PRA) is [1] an automatic entitlement for physicians who collect enough educational credits as part of their job, with the distinguished fellow of the psychiatric association it's a standard award you would expect any professional with a long career to achieve. IRWolfie- ( talk) 16:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply
I see it was his joint work with Linus Pauling that led to the Orthomolecular stuff. I do accept that notability etc. aren't inherited from the multi-Nobel-prizewinning Pauling to Dr Hawkins; but to me, the co-author strongly implies that this isn't some crank fringe piece of work.— S Marshall T/ C 12:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
He is on the fringe, see Megavitamin therapy for example etc (Pauling was also on the fringe too with respect to this). Note that this doesn't by itself make him non-notable; plenty of pseudoscientists, fringe scientists etc are notable. IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Restore. Notable author & pseudoscientist. WorldCat l
isting, showing wide holdings of his books: [2] The editing of the article and the comments at the AfD show a concerted effort to discard or deny all possibly relevant material. I personally have somewhat of a prejudice against pseudoscientists and spiritual writers, but that shouldn't affect my judgement here about who is notable in that field. I think with the given material we'd have accepted the article were he writing on any other subject. Error in the afd, because arguments based ultimately upon prejudice were not discarded. DGG ( talk ) 14:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply
The books argument is a vote for keep in an AfD; This isn't AfD2. Having books in libraries isn't recognised by WP:AUTHOR as a sign of notability. What reliable sources are there to actually write an article which is consistent with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE? There are none in the article and none were shown at AfD. Which arguments do you think were prejudiced? IRWolfie- ( talk) 16:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Nonsense. The AfD argument makes sense for a keep or non-consensus close, but not for a delete close: it is contrary to the overall policy that WP is an encyclopedia, and to make an encyclopedia articles on notable subjects have to be included,unless there is some other reason for exclusion. An erroneous decision on notability harms the encyclopedia. How else but here do you propose to review an afd delete which should not have been deleted? This is specifically the place where people are told to go when there is additional evidence that was not considered at the afd. JClemens below has it right. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
The closure of the AfD by closing admin was not erroneous, he followed procedure. After multiple attempts at speedily delete by a single nominator in the past few weeks, the article was sent to AfD and notifications were not sent to primary editors; the appeal to restore is based on what indicates undue bias against the subject (for that please review edit history and talk page) and summary objection of any relevant material on the subject which lead to, what appears to be, a "defective discussion" and unwarranted deletion on a notable biography within Wikipedia Guidelines. -- Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 17:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Notification shouldn't be expected for anyone but the original creator. Everyone else can just see the notification on the article. IRWolfie- ( talk) 19:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
that point is correct under current deletion policy. Whether it is good policy is another matter: it seems to me it violates basic fairness. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Yes, agreed on both of the comments above, I was not the "original creator" and by the letter did not receive notification; that contributor/creator from 2005 no longer has an account. I was, however, the contributor who requested the article be recreated in July and restored it from a mirrored source. I am aware of the letter of the policy, and also the tactics, purpose and lack of courtesy used here by not notifying a recent editor in this type of circumstance to balance the debate at AfD. It has been clear that the editors deleting the content wanted to have he article removed and would rather have had no arguments presented otherwise. -- Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 05:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
I was one of the significant contributors to the article, and personally I think the version I had edited it into was fine [3], but I'm willing to follow the consensus. IRWolfie- ( talk) 12:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
After considerable contesting over reliability of all of the sources and information given in the restored article in the first hours of recreation, which rather closely mirrored the German language Article, I conceded it to deletion as it was being repeatedly presented for 'speedy delete' every few mins; then the above 'Endorser' states about a reference, What is unreliable about the reference? IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC), and then again about the article itself, I see no reason why it should be deleted. IRWolfie- ( talk) 11:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC). It would appear to me that even he has had some doubt, as well, over the deletion of this article. -- Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 06:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Yes, that is what I said in response to your calls for the article you had restored to be deleted [4]. IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - First, I think I should note that I just now added the deletion review template to the restored page, which had evidently not been added earlier. I'm not sure if, under the circumstances, it would be appropriate to notify those who participated in the earlier discussions or not. Getting on point, I find the argument based on WP:NRVE above to be perhaps flawed. That is an older policy, and I think it might honestly do some good if there were some indication on the page regarding the material included in online subscription databanks, which many editors now have. I used a few of those myself earlier, and found no significant discussion of the author. But there is no clear evidence that this individual is "likely" to have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources based solely on having written books and appeared on national TV. A possibility, yes, but not necessarily a likelihood. The author and his work seem to be on the margin of pseudoscience, and I have never myself gotten the impression that much of this field gets much if any attention in mainstream reliable sources of a non-local nature, but I might be wrong. Also, I myself checked a few databanks on the subject, and I don't remember seeing anything which clearly showed any degree of significant discussion of the author or his work. This further raises questions regarding the alleged likelihood of significant coverage, although it does not categorically refute it. His work may have some degree of reference in the popular media, and I myself am not sure how policy has changed recently, but I remember taking part in a previous discussion about a biograrphy of a prominent academic in the research into centenarians field which was deleted for lack of notability, and which, I think, even led to the banning of that individual as an editor, although I don't remember the details right now. And, by the way, I generally try to be more of an inclusionist than deletionist, but if the evidence ain't there, I tend to err on the side of caution. John Carter ( talk) 17:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply
you seem to be arguing for deletion on the basis that the work of the author is pseudoscience. We have no such bias. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Restore Reading the German article, it includes many claims which make him "notable", eg one of his book was translated in over 15 languages and listed on bestseller lists. He was named "Tae Ryoung Sun Kak Tosa" in Seoul, he headed the North Nassau Mental Health Center, which was the largest psychiatric office in New York (or USA, not clear from the article). Regards.-- Kürbis ( ✔) 18:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. The closing was according to the rules. If the article can be rewritten to fit wikipedia standards, go ahead. Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn/Restore because 2 of the 3 above "endorse" opinions are anti-encyclopedic "The rules were followed appropriately" rather than "the correct result was reached". The article in German seems to have a good bit more material, and looks quite a bit better than what's left of our article. DGG's arguments on his notability are also compelling. Jclemens ( talk) 20:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply
The german entry is completely unsourced. IRWolfie- ( talk) 19:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Agreed. The information could come directly from the writings of the subject himself, the summary descriptions of him in his media appearances, a local or internal newspaper (many of which I have found are available online), or be outright lies. Comments regarding the notability of the subject based on his works being included in a library are interesting and potentially useful, but I tend to think that they might serve better for establishing the notability of the books themselves rather than necessarily of the author. Please see my comments regarding reliably sources material of David Ownby and David A. Palmer below. John Carter ( talk) 19:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Wait, what? "The german entry is completely unsourced?" That's very far from true. You could quibble the lack of inline citations, but de.wiki doesn't require them. Sources are listed and in some cases linked. You could also quibble whether the sources meet en.wiki's standards, and I'd agree that not all of them do. But the entry is very far from unsourced.— S Marshall T/ C 21:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
If you know German better than I do, and trust me, that wouldn't be hard, I defer to your better knowledge of the subject. John Carter ( talk) 21:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • relist I'm not at all certain the outcome was consistent with WP:N. And while local consensus can override, there are enough reasons this person appears to be notable that it's worth having a discussion with those issues out and in front and see what happens. Hobit ( talk) 23:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn (no consensus). The discussion began with insufficient information. More discussion is needed. Undelete, allow some editing, and allow a fresh nomination after a week. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn/relist - Although the closer interpreted the debate correctly, the discussion lacked focus on WP:GNG and instead was focused on personal opinions on how important Hawkins is, largely driven by Iconoclast.Horizon's contributions to that discussion. As a result, available reliable source material was not brought forward. There now is WP:DRVPURPOSE significant new information that has come to light since the AfD deletion. There was some information (listed below)for David Hawkins and kinesiology. Those sources brought up his book Power vs. Force, which was a Globe and Mail listed number 1 best seller. [5] David Hawkins and Power vs. Force puts Hawkins in the news since April 2002. Independent reliable source coverage of that book also includes some biographical material on David R. Hawkins not considered at the AfD. A lot of the reliable source coverage are only book author appearance notices, but some include material that would be good for the article (e.g., [6]) Some other information that should be considered at new AfD includes:
  • Elaine Voci (November 1, 2003). "On the night stand". T&D. 57 (11): 85. Retrieved August 26, 2012. Psychiatrist David Hawkins was knighted by Danish royalty for the work presented in Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior. He teaches readers that on a primal level, the human brain is a wondrous computer linked to a universal energy field and consciousness can be calibrated on a ladder of spiritual enlightenment. The book is for readers with diverse interests in such subjects as attractor patterns for businesses, kinesiology, and personal transformation.
  • Candice Hannigan (April 15, 2004). "Community Of Faith". Atlanta Journal and Constitution. p. 5. David Hawkins, author of "Power vs. Force," will present a workshop {{ cite news}}: |section= ignored ( help)
  • Doug Guthrie and Kendra S (July 28, 2005). "MSU slips new fees onto tab: In addition to fall tuition hikes, students will pay hundreds of dollars in surprise costs". The Detroit News. p. A01. Retrieved August 26, 2012. {{ cite news}}: |section= ignored ( help)
  • Barbara Routen (January 11, 2007). "Democratic Club Elects Its Officers And Directors". Tampa Tribune. p. 2. Retrieved August 26, 2012. Unity in Brandon presents a videotaped workshop by David R. Hawkins, author of "Power Vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior," from 7 to 9 p.m. Friday, Jan. 19 and 26 at Unity, 115 Margaret St., Suites D and E. Hawkins is a psychiatrist, researcher, lecturer and author who first embraced atheism, then suffered from an illness that did not respond to treatment and then lived a hermit's existence for seven years. Close to death in 1965, he had a spiritual awakening and began his recovery, research and writing. In 2003 he became affiliated with the Unity Church. In his book "Power Vs. Force," Linda Compton, spokeswoman for Unity in Brandon, said Hawkins "conclusively proves the ability of kinesiological testing to distinguish truth or falsehood in any statement. He goes on to demonstrate the application of his method in commerce, art, sport, etc. He explains its spiritual application as a path to enlightenment." {{ cite news}}: |section= ignored ( help)
  • Louisa Deasey (May 25, 2008). "Good vibrations. Focusing on the upbeat and thinking positive will lift your mood and your spirits. By Louisa Deasey". The Daily Telegraph (Australia). p. 16. Retrieved August 26, 2012. In the seminal book on the subject, Power vs Force, by David Hawkins (Hay House), Hawkins discusses the beginnings of kinesiological testing by Dr John Diamond, and how simple methods tested on thousands of people have proven certain words, foods, objects and ideas have the capacity to weaken or strengthen our bodies just by being in our energy field. etc. {{ cite news}}: |section= ignored ( help)
  • Jeff Pierce (July 11, 2011). "Power and Force in Your Trading". The Business Insider. Retrieved August 26, 2012.
From what I found, I don't think there is enough WP:GNG reliable source material independent of Hawkins for a stand alone biographical article on Hawkins. However, others might disagree and a new AfD would allow others to review the new information and come up with their own new info by focusing on what matters: reilable source material independent of Hawkins - see WP:GNG. Probably a better approach would be to post an article on Power vs. Force (book) since that is what is drawing in most of the reliable sources who cover this area. You then could include some bio info on Hawkins in Power vs. Force (book) without having to meet WP:GNG for a biography. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 14:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
The comment above makes sense, and also highlights one reason for deletion of the biographical article which has not been stated before, specifically, that there seems to be little information independent of the subject himself which can be reliably sourced. In short, there probably isn't enough information for a biography. I remember reading David Ownby's book Falun Gong and the Future of China and thinking that, between his comments in the book and the author biography from the publisher, it contained more than enough information to make a better article than the one whose content was largely deleted as unsourced. David A. Palmer, author of Qigong Fever, included enough personal information on his article on charisma in Nova Religio to make an even better biographical article than this one, based solely on the that one article. However, having looked for independent reliable sources in JSTOR, NewsBank, ProQuest, and a few other databanks, I think it probably would not meet notability guidelines. This also relates to WP:SIGCOV claims for this article, as most of the information which seems to be really independently reliably sourced from a non-local source in the restored article may not necessarily meet that standard. To what extent does the existence of a paragraph or two in multiple non-local media serve to qualify an individual as meeting notability guidelines?
Also, unfortunately, I see another issue which presents itself here, although it may not be specifically applicable in this individual case, and that is the possibility of non-notable authors attempting to game the system and get their biographies included here. This is particularly true of "lesser" figures, and particularly fringe scientists and others. We recently had a case somewhat similar matter relating to the broad field of the historicity of Jesus. I will be rather circumspect, because I am not sure how many details I can legitimately reveal, but one editor sent me an e-mail after he had apparently "retired" when what was later revealed to be his COI POV pushing failed, indicating he had been included in several cable programs in multiple networks regarding the topic, and that made his ideas notable and reliably sourced, from those networks. Now, if he had tried to write a biographical article on himself, instead of inserting his opinions in topical articles, based on the information from the TV shows establishing his credentials, it might have been better sourced than this one was and might have been kept. Instead, he has been subsequently banned from the site and had been sockpuppeting like mad for a while thereafter, until I think maybe he got some sense. But I think his biographical article, had he written that instead, may well have been just as well sourced, if not better, than the material from the deleted article and the sources supplied by the review nominator here, and that the biographical article might have been kept in the first place, without the editor's COI becoming apparent, even though his ideas may have been all but or completely ignored in topical journals as many fringe theories are, so the only material available on them might be positive and his ideas would be presented in the available sources as not being the fringe ideas they rather clearly are.
So, taking a hypothetical example here, let's say I am a community college professor who took the job because it was the only one I was offered. I publish an article in The Fourth R, the journal of the Jesus Seminar, and a book from a very minor press, which are significantly fringey but also appealing to the Christ myth theory camp, and to some TV networks for programs during sweeps periods. They get me interviewed on Coast to Coast AM or possibly more significant TV or radio shows, where I am allowed to expound my ideas at length without significant criticism, because I might be the sole guest on the show. And, of course, the local newspaper or potentially the newspaper of my community college runs occasional articles on me which contain enough biographical material to make a reasonably comprehensive reliably sourced article, even though most of the really biographical content is strictly local. Does that make me notable enough for a biographical article here? I think roughly similar concerns might be indicated regarding the extant article. John Carter ( talk) 17:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
there have been frequent comments at afds that X cannot be notable for he is no more notable than the speaker is personally. This seems to be an argument based on some singularly unreliable personal knowledge, that,is, one's own impression of one's importance. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't think you got the idea. I was actually trying to indicate that
1) If, in a few sources, there is brief discussion, perhaps a paragraph or two, of a subject, does that count as one of the required bases of notability as per WP:N? I would think the answer is, generally here, no, if it is no more than a paragraph or two.
2) Do purely local sources establish notability, even if they are available on the internet worldwide, particularly if they are the only ones which provide "significant" coverage of the subject? I think the answer there is rather clearly "no."
3) Do a few discussions of a few paragraphs each of the work of an individual in independent sources qualify the individual as personally notable? Probably not, if the discussion is too brief to really do much other than repeat what the individual said with a short response.
4) Do brief introductory discussion of the lives of authors by program hosts and the author, perhaps with a few later comments from both, qualify as significant coverage of the individual in independent reliable sources? Probably not. And, yes, there is a clear precedent of that type. At least one of the articles Cirt put together on a leader the anti-cult movement, a short article of only a few paragraphs, was cobbled together from short statements about the subject during his interviews regarding anti-cult activities, and he was/is one of the leaders of that movement. In fact, one of the biggest "sources" for the article was, so far as I remember, a single paragraph in a news article. Cirt himself admitted he had to do a lot of work to get the article together, even though it was, ultimately, shorter than the leads of many other articles.
I think these are all reasonable points, actually. Having said all that, with the additional information produced below, I have no particular reservations about perhaps userfying the page, although it should be pointed out that any editor could have asked for the article to be temporarily restored by an admin so the content could have been userfied or forwarded to his e-mail, and, certainly, there seems to be basis for thinking the major book is notable for a individual article. John Carter ( talk) 01:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
You cite WP:DRVPURPOSE in that you believe new information has come to light, but nothing in the previous article is required to make a new article, which would be required for the overturn according the DRVPURPOSE. IRWolfie- ( talk) 19:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to userfy  AfD is not a vote count.  The nominator failed to note that the article was on the German Wikipedia, and the closer failed to note that the first !vote was a speedy delete criteria.  This article at one point in time was of length 80,000 characters.  In addition to the 143 reflist references, these references were cited:
  • Chaney, Margaret K. (1996). Red World–Green World:The Hidden Polarities of Nature. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN  0964326132
  • Dyer, Wayne W. (2004). The Power of Intention. Carlsbad, California; London: Hay House. ISBN  1-4019-0355-X
  • Herbert, Nick (1987). Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics. New York: Anchor Books. ISBN  0-385-23569-0
  • Pringle, Kevin (February 16, 2006). Ex-radio moderator and Yahoo group moderator on Hawkins' teaching, ACIM Talk at Miracles Center [143]
  • Shermer, Michael (2002). Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. New York, NY: Owl Books. ISBN  0-8050-7089-3
  • Spencer-Brown, G. (1969, 1994). Laws of Form. Portland, Oregon: Cognizer Company. ISBN  0-9639899-0-1
  • Wilber, Ken (2001). A Theory of Everything. Boston: Shambhala Publications. ISBN  1-57062-855-6
The word orthomolecular means that large drug companies are both incentivised and monetized to generate negative PR.  How this actually works out for Wikipedia I don't have to understand: the turbulent history of this article becomes less of a surprise.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
I agree that userification would be a reasonable course here. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Agree as per own last comment above. I have some questions regarding whether the books above are themselves "reliable" sources, not knowing the publishers of some or the reputations of the authors, but that is a separate matter. Also, of course, I think if the matter is very briefly discussed in any of those sources, those individual sources should not be used to establish notability. John Carter ( talk) 01:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I notified the AFD closer as that step appears to have been missed. Spartaz Humbug! 02:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn/Restore: For those advocating userfy, as per discussion above you will need to userfy that to the original poster/creator in 2005 Paulbard who seems to no longer be here; I personally do not volunteer to do so. Much of this long discourse over all of the references and sources shown here, brings this to my attention WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY or when it comes to "quibbling" over the details like these then apply Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. If there is such an example of where this might just apply, it is this one. From an outside of Wikipedia POV: The book was suggested to me by a CEO of a top 100 technology company government industry contractor who said that I should read it and that it was being used in some executive business training circles in the U.S., that of course got my attention. Since I was not aware of the book or author, I checked my personal book catalogue and to my surprise I actually had the book in my library along with two others by the author, as I am often donated books that I do not get to. That made me even more curious, so I decided to look up information and ran a search engine check returning hundreds of links to the book and the author, yet I felt the information readily available was generally overly promotional. As I would normally do, I checked Wikipedia and found there was nothing here, and that a previous article had been deleted on PROD. I did generally respect a fairness of opinion on Wikipedia but looking at the history of this article puts that into question in several respects. I do feel that if I may be curious about this author, then others probably would be as well, and its previous history over the years supports that, including discussion outside of Wikipedia about this one article: Hawkins Entry on Wikipedia, and it makes sense, given the status of this site, to have that information represented here, especially for someone as contentious as this author. I respect the positions of the 'ardent defenders of Wikipedia' over all of the multitudes of rules quoted and various interpretations of the letter of each policy in this case but taken on the whole it collectively misses the principle . -- Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 03:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
It can be userfied to any interested persons page. Mentioning what bloggers have said has little weight here. IRWolfie- ( talk) 12:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - Let's look at some of the statements User:Iconoclast.horizon uses to defend this article tooth and nail. Mind you, these statements have been stated by him before on other wikipages.
  1. "The book was suggested to me by a CEO of a top 100 technology company government industry contractor who said that I should read it and that it was being used in some executive business training circles in the U.S., that of course got my attention."
  2. " I checked my personal book catalogue and to my surprise I actually had the book in my library along with two others by the author, as I am often donated books that I do not get to. That made me even more curious"
  3. "I felt the information readily available was generally overly promotional. As I would normally do, I checked Wikipedia and found there was nothing here"
Is it any wonder why then, Wiki would have such a turbulant history in dealing with all of its overly promotional sources, if not by User:Iconoclast.horizon himself? Further, has anyone asked why User talk:Iconoclast.horizon's talk page is practically dedicated to David R. Hawkins? Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 06:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
The above statements were in no way presented as 'reasons to defend' this position here, they are taken entirely out of their context by the above user. The statement was made as to how I came to learn of this author in July and my questioning a lack of article here. My personal negative opinion of the author has been stated, yet ignored here. And I am asked to produce source information, locate references, and in process answer to all of the negative feedback and issue created over this article and in so doing my userpage is criticized as being 'dedicated to this author'; again this the same twisting of facts to present something untrue in order to push a case for deletion. -- Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 07:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
I think its clear that you have a bias on the topic, whether its positive or negative is not really relevant. A bias makes it difficult to contribute to an article in a way that meets the Wikipedia:Core content policies. There are a lot of reactions against your efforts which are affecting how editors view the WP:GNG of the topic. The message you should be receiving from the AfD and this DRV is to change your efforts. A best way to do that is to gather all the coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the David R. Hawkins subject and write a Wikipedia article that reflects the main topic brought out by that coverage. If that content includes enough information for a second article on a major subtopic, then write a Wikipedia article on that, too. If you do that, people will focus on the topic and not on your efforts. When you focus on his books and other information that is not independent of the David R. Hawkins, you will fight an uphill battle. I think David R. Hawkins can have a presence in Wikipedia and that secondarily may bring publicity to him and his efforts, which may generate more reliable source information to add to Wikipedia. However, the primary efforts need to be towards producing a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia article. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 15:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
1. Uzma Gamal ( talk · contribs) says, "gather all the coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the David R. Hawkins subject "
No one to date, not even at the German version, has come up with wp:reliable and wp:independent sources. There has only been one source available, questionable even at best, The Skeptic's Dictionary at 23, 2005|publisher=The Skeptics Dictionary
2. Uzma Gamal ( talk · contribs) says, "When you focus on his books and other information that is not independent of the David R. Hawkins, you will fight an uphill battle."
Well, his books are self-published. And I argue, even at DGG, as to how all of a sudden self-published books are essential to a biography that is being challenged and debated as wp:notable? Then I get charged for being prejudice for focusing in and deleting those sources that were not wp:independent, mostly wp:unsourced material that flooded the article early on.
3. Uzma Gamal ( talk · contribs) says, "If that content includes enough information for a second article on a major subtopic, then write a Wikipedia article on that, too."
The second article that David R Hawkins is related to, is called Applied kinesiology. Notice what comment Panyd ( talk · contribs) makes in the history:
18:43, 13 August 2012‎ Panyd (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,867 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (Very much not G11. Looks rather like it's duplicating the applied kinestheology article though) (undo)
4. Uzma Gamal ( talk · contribs) says, "I think David R. Hawkins can have a presence in Wikipedia and that secondarily may bring publicity to him and his efforts, "
Doesn't that suggest a violation of WP:PROMO?
5. Uzma Gamal ( talk · contribs) says, "primary efforts need to be towards producing a neutral, reliably sourced"
And I argue that efforts to find wp:verifiability have been 0, except for the information from the questionable website The Skeptic's Dictionary mentioned above. It has been argued that having this website helped balance the wp:pov from the article being wp:promo, but since it is the only reference for the page... I question that balance.
Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 21:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Just out of curiosity, how much of the really important information about this subject, other than perhaps his Power vs. Force book, wouldn't easily be fit into the applied kinesiology article? John Carter ( talk) 23:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply
According to my calculations, roughly 1,514 bytes (par. "Mainstream scientists...) from David R. Hawkins could be moved to the Applied kinesiology page (which is supported by good references) and reworded to wp:scope under the subsection Applied kinesiology#Criticism. Since Hawkins is not notable, and with no published summary of Operah's interview with Hawkins being available, and the self-published material that DGG promotes, just that move alone to Applied kinesiology#Criticism could put the David R Hawkins page to rest (deleted). I support and propose this move.   — Jasonasosa 23:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Arbitrary break
Analysis of Bibliography
Comment:Okay, let's take a look at David R Hawkins Bibliography as brought to our attention in the lead of this page:
  1. Hawkins, David R. (1996). Goodbye, Scorpion; Farewell, Black Widow Spider: How to Avoid the Stings and Bites of the Southwest's Dangerous Arachnids - And What to Do If You Don't. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN  0-964-32612-4
  2. Hawkins, David R. (1998). Dialogues on Consciousness and Spirituality. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN  0-964-32617-5
  3. Hawkins, David R. (2001). The Eye of the I. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN  0-964-32619-1
  4. Hawkins, David R. (2003). I: Reality and Subjectivity. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN  0-971-50071-1
  5. Hawkins, David R. (2006). Devotional Nonduality. Sedona, Arizona: Veritas Publishing. ISBN  0-9715007-6-2
Note:Why should we allow wikipedia to promote someone who currently self-publishes his own work when that is against policy?
  • His only wp:notable book is really: Hawkins, David R.; Pauling, Linus (1973). Orthomolecular Psychiatry: Treatment of Schizophrenia. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co. ISBN  0-716-70898-1 published by W. H. Freeman and Company
  • Regarding: Hawkins, David R. (1995, 2002). Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior. Carlsbad, California; London: Hay House. ISBN  1-561-70933-6
Who wants to scrape up the tidbits from newspapers and websites that make this book notable? We know we cannot interpret the audio from Oprah's interview with David R Hawkins. Does anyone have the published documented interview? And even at that you would need a wp:reliable wp:independent source to elaborate on the interview.
Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 08:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
It would appear that you may have deliberately downplayed and intentionally overlooked the main reason for his notability by his primary work Power vs Force in attempt to make your argument and to denigrate the rest of his work, and consequential notoriety and recognition stemming from that; again this seems to indicate prejudice. You are accusing me of being "dedicated to the author" but it would appear that '..you protesteth a bit too much..' simply to make your bureaucratic policy points. -- Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 09:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
And yes, by the letter you are right about not interpreting the audio in context for adding content to an article, but this forum isn't the article and you clearly have Oprah stating that she read the book 'Power vs Force' in preparation for the interview and calls it "esteemed work". I am not implying an endorsement, only she could say that, but she clearly read the book and made note of the author enough to interview him. One doesn't have to have a notarized public transcript for that to be understood. Yet, nor have I presented that as reason to keep the article, just so you don't misinterpret that as well. -- Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 09:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Analysis of Publication and Media
These links given by User:‎Iconoclast.horizon for his opening argument.
His most recent interview in the mainstream media 2007:
Oprah Winfrey interviewing David R. Hawkins-Oprah & Friends Radio approximately 30 mins.
soulgarden.me is not a notable webpage ( WP:NWEB), neither is its founder Christopher Witecki, and none of them are wp:reliable.
This is about as much information as we get for the interview without interpreting the audio:
"In recent weeks, Oprah has covered topics in her Soul Series ranging from interpreting the law of attraction to gaining insight on the secret spiritual lives of children. Now, Oprah talks with Dr. David R. Hawkins, author of Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior, about the idea of spiritual enlightenment. Listen in as Dr. Hawkins explains to Oprah how he reached a higher level of consciousness. Plus, Dr. Hawkins talks about the idea of a ladder of spiritual enlightenment on which our souls can be measured."
This is the only tidbit that comes up in Oprah's search engine for David Hawkins!
Don't expect to get more from this link... its the same tidbit article.
Barbara Walters Show Past Guest Bios (reposted at Oneness)-David R. Hawkins
There is no interview with Barbara Walters and David R Hawkins on this page. Why the two names appear on this page, beats me. But after all this website is not notable ( WP:NWEB) or wp:reliable.
This link has nothing to do with Barbara Walters. This weblink is Global Oneness' "Encyclopedia", another website that is not notable ( WP:NWEB) or wp:reliable.
  • National Television Appearances:
I ran a search for the following criteria at google.com ( MacNeil Lehrer David Hawkins) and the first link I get is this!!!: ::: http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/6121431/ The Pirate Bay. (Warning! Clicking this link is at your own risk. I do not advocate this website.) This is what it says:
"Sir David R. Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D. is a nationally renowned psychiatrist, physician, researcher, and lecturer. He co-authored the ground-breaking work, Orthomolecular Psychiatry with Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling, that helped revolutionize psychiatry. His national television appearances include The MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour, The Barbara Walters Show, and The Today Show."
  • MacNeil Lehrer News Hour
  • Barbara Walters Show
  • The Today Show
Notice how the above list given by User:‎Iconoclast.horizon is in the exact order. I cannot find any such interviews and no wp:reliable links were provided.
  • Notable endorsements by public figures:
"...a beautiful gift of writing...you spread, joy, love and compassion with what you write. The fruit of these three things being 'compassion'." Mother Teresa
"...a significant contribution to understanding and dealing with the problems we face today!" Lee Iacocca
"I especially appreciate [the] research and presentations on the attractor patterns in business...Sam Walton
"Perhaps the most significant and important work I have read in the last ten years..." Dr. Wayne Dyer
I'm tired at this point... Maybe Dr. Wayne Dyer can vouch for him.
Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 09:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
You did ask me to find references, source information, etc... I have about 5 more pages worth of complied links, of interviews, articles written about the man or things he has been mentioned in, including 2 recent books written about his works, not to mention 19 pages of negative web commentaries about him full of links, none that I have bothered to make time to go through yet. I will be happy to post them and let you quibble over each one and give your opinion as to why each isn't reliable. I just didn't feel that DRV was the proper place to go into each source one-by-one beyond what was posted in the nomination. I really don't want to bother with it but you seem very determined in your opinion against every relevant piece of material presented. We do appreciate your ever-diligent work on Wikipedia. -- Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 09:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
And sorry that you are having trouble finding the transcripts and other things you need for confirmations to the TV appearances and radio shows. I did not find much as well, in that regard, besides reprints of past guest information and the Oprah audio; so knowing that ahead of time, I was not using that list to confirm or disconfirm, only to show 'relevant material' for the appeal, not sources for an article, as is described in guidelines -- Iconoclast.Horizon ( talk) 09:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Analysis of German related article
The German version of David R Hawkins doesn't even have a reference section or any references to support any of the paragraphs that make up the article. The only thing they have are Weblinks (External links) at the bottom of the page. The German wiki's Wikipedia:Richtlinien (wp:policies) on proper sources are found at Wikipedia:Keine Theoriefindung#Theoriedarstellung (Wikipedia: No original research#Representation theory) where it says, "Alle Artikel in der Wikipedia sollen auf Informationen aus bereits veröffentlichten und möglichst verlässlichen Informationsquellen beruhen. (All articles in Wikipedia should be based on information already published and most reliable sources of information.)" Also, their definition of Original research under Wikipedia:Keine Theoriefindung#Was ist Theoriefindung?, is "Was ist Theoriefindung? Das betrifft insbesondere unveröffentlichte Theorien... (What is original research? This particularly applies to unpublished theories...)" It also states in the following paragraph, "Publikationen im Selbst- oder Zuschussverlag und private Websites sind in aller Regel ungeeignet, wenn sie keine entsprechende Rezeption in der Fachwelt in Form von wissenschaftlichen Zitationen gefunden haben. (Publications in self- or subsidy publishing and private websites are generally inappropriate when no corresponding reception in the art in the form of scientific citations found.)" So as far as I can tell, that page is in just as much violation as the English page has been. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 09:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
But notice their wording: the "articles must be based on published & reliable sources", not "published reliable sources must be given in the article." (This corresponds roughly to our distinction, between "sourceable" , which is required, and "currently sourced," which except for BLPs, is not.) In any case, in practice, the deWP has a great many unreferenced articles, & seems to be making no effort to remove them. But I do not see the relevance here, for our article has sources--the question , as usual in deletion discussions, is their reliability.
And note their wording in the policy on self-published: generally inappropriate. They are sometimes appropriate here as well as there; here we use the for example to show the views of a person, or routine uncontested factual matter. I do not know their practice on pseudoscience, though I would expect it stricter, but we have always had the policy that widely known theories, however nonsensical, and however unsupported by scientific sources, can be notable enough for an article. That's for theories. I do not think we have a policy extending that to pseudoscientists as individuals, where the criteria is the same as everyone else--except that in practice we have two opposite tendencies, first, to accept that in some fields informal sources may be the best available, and second, there is a certain prejudice agains borderline notable pseudoscientists.
I do not have sufficient facility in writing German to start a deletion discussion at the deWP; it would be interesting to see the result, bearing in mind that they do decide by voting. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
OK, maybe this is not the best place to raise this question, maybe a policy page would be better, but I think it does, to a degree, specifically relate to this particular subject, and given the relevance to this page can reasonably be asked here. As a theoretical example, if the author of a self-published book sees that book make it onto a best-seller list, even a local one which is published in a local newspaper, and, on the basis of that information, and perhaps a good agent, becomes available for media interviews, does that help establish his notability? I'm actually not thinking of this particular case, although it might be applicable here, but maybe perhaps an author of a history of Palau, for instance, whose population is 21,000 total. So, again theoretically, even if the main point of the self-published book is that Palau is in fact the last surviving remnant of Atlantis/Mu/whatever, if it contained some material of another nature which might be involved in helping the author achieve "talking head" status in the media, does anyone have any idea what if anything the relevant encyclopedic content regarding him or his book would be?
Also, specifically asking this of DGG for informational purposes, and I want to make it clear it is only for informational purposes, not a "gotcha" attempt, does anyone have any idea on what basis we would be able to establish knowing whether a theory is widely known enough to qualify as a "widely known theory, however nonsensical"? This relates to, among others, an old argument about whether there is basis for a Joseph and Imhotep/ Joseph and Imhotep are the same person article. I am told by Christians of a biblical inerrancy POV that the theory is widely known and accepted in that branch of Christianity, and don't doubt that, but had not, at the time it was proposed, been able to find any reliable sources which gave it any length of discussion, so there was no basis for any substantive material from independent reliable sources. John Carter ( talk) 18:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
There are no clear cut lines here. I agree that the degree of notability is disputable. About your example, though not relevant here: I think there is justification for such an article. I believe it to be it is a known hypothesis supported by publications (I can probably re-locate what I remember reading--I tend to remember that I have read something, though not necessarily in what book I read it.) sources.) But biblical studies is a respectable line of human scholarship--& can be responsibly studied by people with a wide range of religious views; The hypothesis is conceivably even true even without the belief in the inspiration, let alone the inerrancy of the Bible. (a non-believer would probably word it as a figure like Joseph rather than Joseph exactly as described in the OT.) DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
I admit to rather wondering at that, because it did not seem compatible with the rest of the material. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment: Further, why hasn't careful consideration of WP:BLP been considered for this biography? Notice the opening lines for this policy:
"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:"
  • Neutral point of view (NPOV)
  • Verifiability (V)
  • No original research (NOR)
Which means that biographies, especially for living persons, should be scrutinized more so than religious or scientific articles. Yet those who criticize this article for it not being WP:NOTABLE, for those who take the care to remove WP:UNSOURCED and not WP:RELIABLE content, and any WP:ORIGINAL research are branded as prejudice! How dare you (Especially DGG). For further discussion See Talk:David R. Hawkins. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 21:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
Removal of half of the publications during the discussions seemed to me an attempt to prevent fair consideration of the individual. I accept your implied correction that it may have been a (misguided) attempt to improve the article. But the idea that the books a writer publishes--even self-publishes is not relevant content in a bibliography of his works is what I consider a true perversion of the meaning of reliable sources, For books, as distinct from minor publications, we have included this in every author bibliography I know of here. I would indeed be reluctant to use any of this author's works, no matter who published them, as sources for anything other than his own views. The principle of BLP is treating article subjects fairly. I have a considerable prejudice against the author's general direction of work myself, but that shouldn't affect the encyclopedia. I despise pseudoscience, but I consider my prejudice against it no reason to remove borderline figures there, andy more than in any other field; I do consider such attempts expressions of prejudice just as much as it would be to try to preferentially remove articles about musicians whose music one hates, or politicians one disagrees with. The very fact that I know my prejudice makes me the more careful not to let it affect my work here. It's accepted that discussions of someone's notability is not a violation of BLP; I think beyond a certain level of unfairness, it does apply to attacks upon it; saying what is the borderline is difficult--we need enough flexibility to permit rational discussion. I also stand by my restoration of content: he did publish them, and the publishers are as stated. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • This is all good and nice... only towards the good professor who lost his mind after a moderate career (or smartly decided to make big buck off incurable stupitity or desperation). But what about being good to the readers of wikipedia? There is a huge number of kooks no serious author bother to write about. They litter local newspapers with ads and interviews, and self-publish abundantly to promote their business. Of course it would be nice to have balanced articles which would describe hem who they really are, but who really cares? Unfortunately without serious criticism there is thin chance to write an article which is less than promotion of the kookery. THerefore it is heavy insistence on solid independent sources as a basis for the article, and various hyperclaims from promotional sources must be ignored if no independent confirmation. Therefore the closure was perfectly within both the rules and the spirit of wikipedia, and this page is not a place to complain how good this article might have been if only it allowed to sit here 3-4 more years (and accumulate more fluff). Staszek Lem ( talk) 15:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply
I accept there is a problem with articles where all the sources available are those in support of some weird idea, because nobody sensible would conceivably bothered to take it seriously. (this frequently is the situation for articles on paranormal phenomena) But we have no authority to decide on the weirdness of an idea. We can say something is self published. If published by a fringe press, we can add that. We can say a book is held in very few libraries. But we can not judge on what is fringe unless there is a RS saying so. We cannot be concerned that if what we give is factual information, but we think that all available factual information is biased, it would mislead the reader & we therefore shouldn't publish it. That's an expression of our own OR and our own bias, however correct they are. It's really an equivalent of IDONTLIKEIT.
And I accept there is a serious and general problem about local coverage of local authors, and PR-infuenced interviews. We're getting a lot of this , in all subjects. It has no particular relationship to pseudoscience or kookiness--it is even more frequent for poets and novelists and musicians. And businessmen and lawyers and doctors. And student athletes and performers, and town politicians. And not just people: restaurants, real estate brokerages, insurance agencies, merchandisers of all types of products and services. We try to deal with the problem with WP:LOCAL and NOT MEMORIAL. I have consistently argued and will continue to argue that local book reviews of a local author are meaningly indiscriminate, and routine interviews even in national media are essentially PR, with anything the interviewee says being just his autobio and any tributes or complements the interviewer pays him just conventional polite conversation to get him talking. This is one of the reasons I thing the N=2RS rule, the GNG, should be depreciated, and notability of a person or firm judged by whether they have done something important. The assumption that only notable people will get press coverage is amusingly naïve--I find it hard to believe that even 8 or 10 years ago we were quite that unsophisticated. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply
FWIW, I do broadly agree with your point here. A sitewide Rfc on notability would be a great idea. Mark Arsten ( talk) 23:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply
And I third the motion. Particularly regarding some topics of some possible significant importance to the WikiProject, which still are difficult to find sourcing for, like, maybe, the emirs of each of the United Arab Emirates, it can be difficult to find. And, for some people working on fringe issues, it can be hard to find anything, other than maybe The Skeptical Inquirer, which offers independent reliable coverage. I think the Menawiki discussion currently taking place provides some indication of the problems finding sources on some subjects which we presume would be notable, but still can't be proven through sources. And, honestly, considering we now have, I think, a bit better idea of what is available in reliable sources, and in RS in English, we might well be able to perhaps rewrite them with a bit clearer idea of what kind of sources are available out there. John Carter ( talk) 23:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Afd Closer If this is overturned, I'd prefer to see a relist or a userfication. I think I closed it correctly, considering the consensus and the weak sourcing offered. I'm still a bit worried about a lack of 3rd party reliable sources covering this fellow, although there are no shortage of "hyperclaims", as Staszek Lem eloquently puts it. Mark Arsten ( talk) 17:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC) reply
What is your opinion of these two edits: [7], [8].  One edit comment is, "(I don't think this book is the source of notability)", and one says, "(remove, I don't think these sources are reliable (or in use)).  The first is an unreferenced claim that redefines that for which Hawkins is "best known", and the second removes five offline book references.  In contrast with the first edit, the German Wikipedia says, "The book has been translated into 15 languages ​​and was in several countries in the bestseller lists."  Unscintillating ( talk) 20:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC) reply
I'm Ok with the first edit, which changed it from saying "he is best know for this book" to "he is best known for his work on X subject" (which was detailed in the book). Not sure it was the best change to make, but I don't find it objectionable. As for the second dif, in which he removes several sources as unreliable, I'm not sure. I'd have to check the publishers' reputations and book reviews to be certain. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The books may well not be reliable sources about anything but their own content and their author's views, as per WP:SPS. That is not a reason to remove them from the bibliography in the article about the author, particularly not during a deletion discussion. The work an author has created should be listed if s/he is notable enough for an article, not all sub topics in an articel need be individually notable nor reliable. That this author has written, and self-published, these books appears to be a clear fact. DES (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and relist as per DGG. I am not sure if this person is truly notable or not, although from the content of this discussion and the current article i suspect he is notable as a promoter of pseudoscience. The closer may well have correctly interpreted the views expressed. But, in part because of the dubious edits mentioned above, I don't feel that policy-based vs essentially IDONTLIKEIT arguments were properly evaluated, and the discussion was, in effect, poisoned. Yes, we could userfy or delete and then have a new draft written, possible via AfC or another DRV. But will that have any positive purpose not attained by simple relisting? I don't think so. If this close is endorsed, I would be willing to userfy to anyone who expresses serious intent to improve the article. DES (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_August_25&oldid=1078422565"