Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britt Marie Hermes


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per SNOW. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 16:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Britt Marie Hermes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I recognize there are citations, and she might even be notable, but this article is too promotional for me to  rewrite. The only practical course is to blow it up and start over again. If anyone can manage to fix this, I'll withdraw the AfD.  DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a possible middle ground. Would you mind tagging the bits that bother you with promotion-inline so that others can fix them? I don't see much of a problem there myself.LeadSongDog come howl!  15:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - I honestly don't see it as promotional, or at least not "too" promotional. Most of it seems simply stating what she is known for.  If any rewriting is necessary, it would be very minor tweaking into more encyclopedic voice, not wholesale gutting of the article.  Notability seems to be established, and besides, I am philosophically opposed to WP:TNT anyway. Fieari (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable critic of naturalpathic medicine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Johnpacklambert, Did you examine the sources? Delta13C (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Not sure how she can be deemed a "non-notable critic of naturalpathic medicine" when the news link above yields substantial coverage in pretty impressive list of media. On the first page of the Gnews hits alone, there are articles in Forbes, which headlines her feature article, "Why Is Big Naturopathy Afraid Of This Lone Whistleblower?", then National Post, CBC, etc. The nominator suggests that WP:TNT applies. I don't see this as anywhere near bad enough for TNT. I am not philosophically opposed to TNT but the nominator is drastically overstating things. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This article spent a bunch of time in Draft status and was denied several times for these very same reasons. DGG, you were involved in that process. But then the author worked on the wording and added some recent news coverage to fix the notability problem, and the article was accepted. Now suddenly it doesn't pass muster again? What changed? (I realize DGG you didn't do the acceptance, but you can see how this ping-pong is extremely frustrating for a new editor like Medicalreporter). --Krelnik (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * the only way to end the ping-pong is to make a decision here one way or another.  DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. While I'm the author of the article, I think it is pretty clear that she passes notability: 1) Significant coverage in Vox, Forbes, National Post, CBC, and KPLU; 2) Significant coverage by leading experts and critics of complementary and alternative medicine (David Gorski, Steven Novella, and Edzard Ernst); 3) Significant coverage by media sources who wanted her opinion on major news stories concerning naturopaths, like the toddler's death in Canada and pending legislation in California; 4) Significant coverage by foreign press including a Taiwanese and French source. I think this is important given the fact that her status comes out of a topic that is typically vulnerable to fringe issues. I did another round of looking for sources and found this news article in Healthline which quotes her substantially along with other experts in nutrition on the topic of dubious naturopathic vitamins. There was also coverage of her by Edzard Ernst just yesterday, who is the leading authority on the scientific evaluation of complementary and alternative medicine. He writes about the smear campaign that naturopathic groups have launched against her, which was also covered in the Forbes article. When I drafted the article I asked for specific help to reduce any promo tone, even directly to DGG, the nominator of the AfD and other users with experience on the topic of naturopathy, LeadSongDog, Delta13C, Alexbrn, JzG, Pepperbeast. ---Medicalreporter (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Lots of in-depth coverage in mainstream media and by prominent physicians who are established experts in and critics of alternative medicine. Her being the only naturopathic defector and a significant voice against an alternative-medicine profession that is trying to become mainstream warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. I'd say that WP:TNT is being wrongly invoked by nominator. Issues with promo tone can be sorted out on article's talk page. Delta13C (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment As I said, I'lll be glad to withdraw the AfD if someone will take responsibility for improving it.   DGG' ( talk ) 18:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But I think the consensus is that it's not so badly in need of attention -- and you're way off the mark in even raising TNT -- or it seems, understanding what TNT is intended to address. As for the promotional tone issue, the article is populated with what appear to me to be neutral statements: "She contends... She has described... She has characterized." The whole Afd appears to me to be way off the mark and I would respectfully suggest the nominator needs to "take responsibility" for his actions, and withdraw this, regardless. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Does not seem overly promotional, documents her history and advocacy. No need to delete, normal editing can deal with any perceived bias. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I went through the history of the article and I can't see where it was ever very "promotional." The fact that this is an activist that is being written about means that there will be a certain slant to the article based on the activist's views. If she's against a topic, she will be talking against it. I think that may be where the idea that the article is "promotional" came about. I am glad that the creator, stuck with the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly adequate indicia of notability.  Once again, we confuse cleanup with notability.  The article needs a more neutral tone, but it is well-sourced and the individual appears notable within the field. Perhaps editors who work on pseudoscience issues might wish to comment here, also.   Montanabw (talk)  03:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable. It needs some clean up, it is notable. I'm not going to make the same arguments, see above. ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 12:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - The sources cited in the article are plenty to satisfy WP:BIO, and while the article needs work, I don't see that it sinks to the level of WP:TNT. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Shawn.142.105.159.60 (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This nomination is so far from the point of WP:TNT. As other editors have mentioned, it needs cleanup to sound more encyclopedic in tone. Cleanup is warranted, but saying it's promotional is an overstatement. Notability is clearly established in the sources. ERK  talk 07:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Since there is attention on the article now thanks to this AfD, perhaps is a good time to address begin the clean up. I made a note on the article's talk page about an ugly sentence in the lede. I also adjusted the content in the Advocacy section to be more fluid. Delta13C (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.