Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana Parish


 * 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. I could repeat what what said at the related AfD, for Andrew Hollander. The SPAs have come out, but unfortunately for them, none of them actually put forward arguments to bolster their case. So, the "deletes" have it. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Dana Parish

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I just reverted an edit that had a lot of unsourced puffery about singer/songwriter Dana Parish. This caused me to review the article and edit history. The article is filled with dubious puffery. Also, the article is sourced mostly from Parish herself or from her own PR-associates, with the exception of an NY Post article.

There is no evidence of "significant coverage" required for notability. It's possible that many of the edits (along with edits of Parish's husband Andrew Hollander) are by someone close to the subject. The talk page warns about 2015 concerns about conflicts of interest, and the creator of this article also edited Hollander's page.

Parish has no scientific credentials, but she co-authored a 2021 book attempting to legitimize fringe beliefs and conspiracy theories about infectious diseases like Lyme disease, bartonella, and COVID. But unlike conspiracy theorists like Judy Mikovits, her beliefs claiming that autoimmune diseases and many other conditions are related to chronic Lyme disease never received "significant coverage" from reliable sources for notability. Accordingly, I think it is a good idea to delete this article. ScienceFlyer (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This recommendation for profile removal makes no sense. I loved Dana's music industry work with Idina Menzel,,,which is when I started following her. I found her personal story fascinating including the fact that her Yale trained doctor saved her life! I loved that they wrote a top selling book together to help doctors and patients. Why is a random person allowed to make strange comments and unfound accusations? Laurarae1966 (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC) — Laurarae1966 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * KEEP I see this is a personal attack on Parish and her husband and that Parish’s page was vandalized before. This is not allowed. I have spent time verifying her citations and notability is met. Crazy4science (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC) — Crazy4science (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I looked up these references and they are all valid. I am not sure why this author is being targeted but her book is legitimate and was endorsed by Sanjay Gupta, George Church and others. It is not fringe. I read it after her interview on The Doctors.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio Coscolín (talk • contribs) 01:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FuVMVziGii8&feature=emb_imp_woyt
 * https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f5zESbA7AJE&feature=emb_imp_woyt
 * https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/celine-dion-shows-edge-and-tries-out-new-characters-on-loved-me-5770656/
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/opinion/long-covid-lyme-disease.html
 * https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/06/22/intersection-coronavirus-lyme-disease-creates-summer-worry-column/3221450001/
 * https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ticks-california-beaches-lyme-disease/
 * https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5OX0Z_RKOOU&feature=emb_imp_woyt
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/marybethpfeiffer/2020/03/13/lessons-from-lyme-disease-six-reasons-the-cdcs-covid-19-failure-was-predictable/?sh=78e6cc4f8e6b
 * https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/covid-concerned-colleges-spring-start-dates-remote
 * https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2013/11/02/celine-dion-loved-me-back-to-life-interview/3189581/


 * The recommendation to delete this page is clearly a personal attack and has no merit. Dana Parish is an author signed to Harper Collins and a songwriter signed to Sony Music. There are more than enough references on her page to support her legitimacy. It should be noted that the same person suggesting deletion is trying to delete her husband's Wikipedia page as well (also with no legitimate reason since his page is also well referenced and he has worked on many high profile projects with acclaimed recording artists and filmmakers), all the more evidence that these are personal attacks and harassment. magic4950 (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC) — Magic4950 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The recommendation to delete is based on lack of notability and reliable sources to support an article. I don't think we can say Parish's book is notable simply because it was published by a big publisher, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (now called HarperCollins). On the contrary, given the marketing force typically available to a large publisher, it's notable that this book has received little attention outside of WP:FRINGE circles. Given the fringe chronic Lyme disease and herbalism topics mentioned in the (paid-for?) Kirkus Review, discussion of this book should be in accordance with WP:NFRINGE. And while Parish may have been employed in the music industry for a number of years and worked for some well-known artists, there is no evidence of widespread notability in accordance with MUSICBIO. Billboard has a page showing a single credit: one of Parish's songs briefly reached #23 on its chart, but there isn't good evidence that this song or album was notable. I haven't found evidence, aside from her own PR firm, to support claims about being "one of the highest-charting independent artists. Parish bested herself, and broke into the Top 10, with the second single". The nomination of both this article and the article for Andrew Hollander for deletion was prompted by noticing highly dubious edits made over a period of years by single purpose accounts like yourself and by a shared editor already identified as potentially having a conflict of interest. Though nominated on the same day, I urge other editors to consider each article and nomination for deletion on its own merits. ScienceFlyer (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fyi, the Kirkus Reviews Indie Reviews (a separate, paid program within Kirkus Reviews) are clearly marked, e.g. example "Review Program: Kirkus Indie". The review I linked in this discussion is not an Indie review. Beccaynr (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh ok thanks! I also composed my other comment before reading yours. ScienceFlyer (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The first link alone with the interview on The Doctors should demonstrate Dana's credentials and public notability with regard to both the book she wrote and her early music career. Thats was from just last year, I recall the episode. DubiousPuffery (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not much more than an interview, the program doesn't meet notability standards IMHO. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Update: I have now recommended deletion of the page for Parish's husband Andrew Hollander. ScienceFlyer (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Women,  and New York.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This reasoning feels like personal bias against this musical artist and author. What in the article is untrue? What specifically is incorrect? More proof than malicious personal attacks are needed to support the deletion of this article. DubiousPuffery (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC) — DubiousPuffery (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Just because an article is correct doesn't mean the subject is WP:NOTABLE. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the article is untrue. We need you to prove notability with reliable sources, as explained above. Please refrain from the accusations of personal attacks; we delete several hundred articles a month because they don't meet notability standards here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is content in the article that is not verified, including several career-related claims. Beccaynr (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Even further reason to delete it then; I've looked and can't find substantial sources we can use. Almost appears to be an SEO article used to further her career, which I'm doubtful is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see below links that illustrate Dana Parish's credentials as both a songwriter and expert in Lyme Disease and other vector borne diseases. There is clearly significant coverage of her work, including by other respected public voices in science, that warrants her page on Wikipedia.
 * https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/celine-dion-shows-edge-and-tries-out-new-characters-on-loved-me-5770656/
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/opinion/long-covid-lyme-disease.html
 * https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/06/22/intersection-coronavirus-lyme-disease-creates-summer-worry-column/3221450001/
 * https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ticks-california-beaches-lyme-disease/
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/marybethpfeiffer/2020/03/13/lessons-from-lyme-disease-six-reasons-the-cdcs-covid-19-failure-was-predictable/?sh=78e6cc4f8e6b
 * https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/covid-concerned-colleges-spring-start-dates-remote
 * https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2013/11/02/celine-dion-loved-me-back-to-life-interview/3189581/ magic4950 (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a source assessment table of the sources listed above:
 * Beccaynr (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Beccaynr (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I found a 2020 book review from Kirkus Reviews and a 2008 CBS News article that follows her appearance on The Early Show and includes some biographical information and career highlights. The WP:NYPOST is not helpful for supporting notability, but per WP:MUSICBIO, the Billboard charting may help support this article (I have not been able to verify all of the chart-related claims in the article). Beccaynr (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We'd probably need another book review for AUTHOR, having a charting single is notable, but we don't have enough of each for the article to be kept. Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We need more than another review for WP:AUTHOR, e.g. per #3 The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews... (emphasis added, because this guideline requires more than multiple reviews for one work). Based on available sources, this article appears suitable for deletion per the second prong of WP:N, because Wikipedia is not WP:PROMO. Beccaynr (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts and comments. Kirkus Reviews is viewed as a sometimes-paid marketing tool, so I question whether it is truly independent of the subject. This review aside, there isn't evidence of widespread notability for this book. There is also no evidence the reviewer is a reliable source for medical topics, since the book promotes herbalism and long-discredited WP:FRINGE alternative medical beliefs about diverse conditions, including multiple sclerosis, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, and psychiatric disorders. I provided some other comments in response to another editor. ScienceFlyer (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The selfpublishingadvice.org website discusses the Kirkus Indie Reviews program, even though they refer to it as "Kirkus Reviews", but it is separate from the unpaid and independent Kirkus Reviews we routinely cite at AfD as contributing support for notability. But as further discussed in the source assessment table I added above, there does not appear to be sufficient support to show this one book is significant or well-known for WP:AUTHOR notability, in addition to insufficient reviews. Per WP:FRINGELEVEL, there also does not appear to be sufficient sourcing, WP:MEDRS or otherwise, to support WP:NBOOK notability for the book at this time. Overall, based on the available sources, it appears we have insufficient independent and reliable support per the applicable notability guidelines, so I !vote delete. Beccaynr (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Not quite enough significant independant coverage (such as reviews) to meet either WP:NAUTHOR or WP:COMPOSER, and not really convinced is enough to meet WP:SINGER. There is some coverage, hence only a weak !vote. Looking at WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS, the Billboard charting is in the "Adult Contemporary" category, which is airplay only in the US, and I'm not convinced is overly significant. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please, keep content, don't delete wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio Coscolín (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC) — Sergio Coscolín (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Simply asking to keep isn't really a valid argument as per WP:PLEASEDONT. You need to say what policy/guideline-based reasoning there is for keeping. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep/comment/explanation I came to this page and I spent my hours on this situation. This is concerning as this person has targeted Dana Parish (and now her husband Andrew Hollander) before and was likely the one who vandalized her page calling her a “grifter” in her bio, so a series of vandalism do exist.
 * “Science Flyer” is the handle making these attacks on Dana Parish and her husband Andrew Hollander . Harming and harassing people is not allowed on Wikipedia. Blocking is an option for continued abuse and harassment.” AppleBoosted (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC) — AppleBoosted (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * ’’’Comment’’’ clearly a vexatious nomination by a troll. They identified a legitimate vulnerability both in the page and in Wikipedia’s culture and they’ve exploited it.2A00:23C7:829E:7E01:BC16:CB7B:9B99:B56D (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And apples are red. Please sign your posts or we can't consider it as valid. Tis getting to be SNOW again. We should close this down. Oaktree b (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's WP:SNOWING as it's far from unanimous. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * For someone who knows so much about them, is there a COI-conflict of interest? We have nothing in either article to say they are a couple and I can find no sources to support this. People involved in the discussion here seem to know more about both individuals than what's given in either article. Please review the WP:COI requirements if this is the case. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've seen a few sources about them being a couple, including https://www.danaparish.com/ and https://nypost.com/2013/11/02/nyc-songwriter-dana-parish-finds-big-break-with-celine-dion/ though I do wonder how some of the people posting here came to learn this AfD was happening, but I try to WP:AGF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Well, I usually avoid hot discussions but this page fairly passes WP:GNG we can't doubt that at least. Elena Marcus D (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How so? The Dana Parish page is the number one hit on Google for her name but it only averaged 3 page views per day from July 1, 2015 to July 30, 2022. Amazon says Parish's book was released on February 2, 2021. Nevertheless, the Dana Parish page averaged only 5 page views per day from January 1, 2021 to July 30, 2022. There is no good evidence that Parish meets the Wikipedia standards for notability, either for her music or for her book. Both Google trends and the Wikipedia page stats show no evidence of increasing notability. Doing a search in the Wikipedia library's EBSCO database found a single hit for Parish, which was a brief review of the book by a library assistant. A search of Wikipedia library's Proquest database for "dana parish" AND YR(>=2004) revealed only 102 results, most of which are duplicates, passing mentions, unrelated entities (i.e. not the Dana Parish of the article), press releases, and some of the other references already discussed here. ScienceFlyer (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * &*Today I learned a new thing from you that notability is associated to daily page views. Thanks Elena Marcus D (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As per WP:NBIO, popularity is very much secondary. Sources are what matter for WP:NOTABILITY, please see WP:NBASIC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Page views can be bought; you can basically set up a farm that only views your page over and over on computers. Nothing helpful for notability. Certainly can be an indication of popularity, doesn't help notability standards on wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing that we delete every people-page that has fewer than 5 views per day? Because that would be the only *fair* policy here, rather than nominating only this page for deletion. I, also, do not see anything in WP:NBIO about page views. Test35965 (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOBODYREADSIT is listed at the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions essay, with a caveat about redirect discussions. I also agree that refocusing this discussion to the notability guidelines and independent and reliable sources that demonstrate support for notability would be helpful. Beccaynr (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete but hold the salt WP:TOOSOON there’s always the possibility that this subject may become notable at a later date. As things stand, though, there’s no way you’ll get anything more than a stub out of these sources and in my experience WP:GNG is usually unambiguous and symbiotic with most alternative notability criteria. As for the troll, they won’t be able to harass the subject if there’s no Wikipedia entry to weaponise, so we’ll be getting two birds stoned at once.2A00:23C7:829E:7E01:78D8:3439:72E:BA24 (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: let's have a discussion without SPAs Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  01:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Her sources and media coverage are from reliable sources I think I don't have to mention each source, Wikipedia should investigate because what I'm reading here this whole XFD process looks fishy. I will also leave comments on her husband's XFD. 2603:8001:9300:9656:7C7E:ED5:68D0:F92C (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We have, it's been socks mostly commenting. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep She has good sources based on her occupations. This article was developed in December 2013 and suddenly it got listed in AFD and this seems like an targeted attack in this article.Trbrosfriday (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting that I've semi protected this AfD as it seems to be the target of some sort of meatpuppetry campaign. firefly  ( t · c ) 21:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete and protect These single purpose accounts are going to recreate this the moment that it's deleted, so please protect it. Other than that, im not really sure we need such a promo piece as this. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Before counting or analysis the keep and delete vote please do check on the talk page of Handmeanotherbagofthemchips and it seems like a targeted attack.I have mentioned the same details in another AfD as the same person targeting this article too. Losovefa (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Move to draft. I see some glimmerings in the NY Post article (which is listed as two separate references). I suspect a deeper search may uncover more, but I would leave it to an AFC reviewer to let it back in. BD2412  T 02:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment At WP:RSP, the description for WP:NYPOST includes A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. I searched for more sources and posted what I found above but do not believe it is sufficient to support notability. Based on the apparent meatpuppetry campaign, I agree that salting this article seems appropriate. Beccaynr (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, and Entertainment. ScienceFlyer (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Hollander's page has been deleted, I'd agree to a SALT here too, it seems everyone is crawling out of the woodwork on these nominations; would be nice if they'd stick around and help with the other AfD discussions. This one has been a good learning experience for all involved. Oaktree b (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2022 (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.