Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Horner MD


 * 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   no consensus. After the cleanup, at any rate, there is no consensus to delete here. The merits of the subject's medical views or practices aren't reasons for deletion...  Sandstein  17:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Christine Horner MD

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is possibly a copy and paste job and is not in wiki format, and it is probably too much work to clean up Wayne Jayes (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep agree with nominator, so I mostly blanked the unsourced material as per WP:BLP abnd possible WP:COPYVIO concerns; there are references indicating notability but article creator needs to write this article properly.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the creator of the article but really new to all this. I created the article in word, using the Dr. Oz wiki as a guideline, then copied and pasted into this entry, thus the problems with formatting. Sorry but I was under the impression that there was an editorial process in place for cleanup. In terms of notability, Horner is a creator of significant new federal healthcare legislation for breast reconstruction surgery and an award-winning author and media personality. I also notice the middle name is incorrect, Louise was her birth name but has been legally changed to Athena ( see these links: ) I'm happy to edit and clean up the article, but not sure the best way. Kypris3 (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC) kypris3 14 August 2014


 * Delete There is absolutely nothing in the article that could make this article pass WP:BASIC. Notability might be asserted, but not proven in the article  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 18:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * References count is 19 after revamp, which suggests Horner passes the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep User talk:Tomwsulcer has done a great job of fixing the article. I have found some what I think are reliable and independent references, I am worried that some of the 19 refs are less than reliable, but on the whole Dr Horner is now shown to be notable  and the article should be kept Wayne Jayes (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Although there are many references, none of them is to what I would consider to be a major source. There are local radio interviews, mostly as reviews of her book, and articles in non-scientific journals. An article in a medical journal would be expected here if she has developed a medically significant treatment. In fact, she's advising women to eat flax seed, and to avoid Electro-Magnetic Forces using a gizmo she sells on her web site. Her web site calls her "best selling author" and "renowned speaker." I'm learning toward delete for pure charlatanism, and I'd love to know where her MD is from (and if she's board certified at any medical facility). LaMona (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is overthinking things. Horner is a plastic surgeon who wants to decrease the number of mastectomies through preventive methods (diet, exercise, etc). She is not an academic. She wrote a book, speaks on television and radio frequently, is a clear and persuasive speaker, and there are numerous references (18+) such as this one and this one and this one and this one and others which far exceed the GNG requirement of received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A "local" radio or TV interview, when the market is Miami, Florida -- metro population 5.5 million -- how is this "local"? -- CBS Miami should be considered to be a reliable source. Wikipedia's notability rules are straightforward. It is not our job as Wikipedia contributors to play medical researchers, to evaluate whether Horner's methods and advice are medically sound or whether Horner's educational credentials or publishing history is worthy -- we are not in a position to make such evaluations and nobody expects us to do this here -- simply our job is to determine whether a subject is notable. That's it. Clearly Horner is notable. IF there are sources claiming her methods are incorrect or detrimental (and I searched hard when revamping the article -- I did not find any) -- but if such sources exist, then we should add them to the article and say that such-and-such a critic disputes her method. But claiming she's a charlatan with no sources saying so is pure original research. I am not saying that she is not a charlatan -- this may be the case but my guess is that it is almost certainly not the case -- but it is not our position here to make such a determination. As she is not an academic, it makes no sense to insist that she publish in specific medical journals to establish her notability along the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC; rather, simply, she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If the result of this discussion is Keep then the article name should change to Christine Horner, she should lose the suffix MD in accordance with wikipedia naming conventions Wayne Jayes (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree about ditching the MD.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article reads well now and fits with Wikipedia style. AAA3AAA (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2014 (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.