Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Amen


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 09:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Amen

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I’ve come across a page within Wikipedia, that in my opinion, does not reflect the spirit of Wikipedia as a whole. I did a bit of research on the page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines, and within the ‘Not part of the encyclopedia’ section, it distinctly states that: ''Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines about encyclopedic content. These standards require verifiability, neutrality, respect for living people, and more.'' The page that I’ve come across is on a Daniel Amen, which can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Amen A subjective commentary on Dr Amen’s work is presented but it turn quite ugly with strong allegations, to the point of slander, on the part of a reference from quackwatch.com. In my opinion, this is not within the spirit of Wikipedia and this page should be removed. The person involved, Daniel Amen, is being criticized within a forum he has no recourse for rebuttal. I have tried to remove links to quackwatch.com, as I find them self-serving but on several occasions they have been reverted back, so simple editing has had no effect. Fthomas137 16:18, December 9, 2011‎ (UTC)


 * Keep. First of all, this venue is not at all appropriate at this time. There has been NO DISCUSSION by this newbie about the issue on the article's talk page. Secondly, there have been many attempts, often vandalous in nature, to remove notable criticisms found in reliable sources. That violates our policies here. Criticism is not the same thing as libel, and our NPOV policy requires that all sides of the subject be covered, including criticisms and controversies found in reliable sources. Fthomas doesn't understand our policies here well enough to be starting a deletion discussion. Other issues must be dealt with first, and that always starts on the talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Close this AfD as improper. I request that an admin close this AfD and also remove the AfD notice from the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I feel that my request is justified. I may be a newbie, but that doesn't change the initial issue one bit. It seems to me from the information I quoted out of Wikipedia's own rules, that Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines about encyclopedic content. These standards require verifiability, neutrality, respect for living people, and more. In my opinion, this entry does not reflect this high standards at Wikipedia. Fthomas137 9:41, December 12, 2011‎ (UTC)


 * The problem here is partially a procedural one. Unless you have already attempted to deal with the matter on the article's talk page (Talk:Daniel Amen), your attempted deletion is improper. You must first discuss the matter there, and you need to be specific. Vague allegations won't do. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, that is fine. You do mention that my facts are vague. But if you read this entry it puts Daniel Amen in a terrible light. I've done some research on this person and this wikipedia page does not reflect who this person is at all. It really comes across as an attempt to slander this person on a very public forum. For example, did you know that Dr Amen has had four New York bestselling books? Or that he has compiled over 70,000 scans? This is the tip of the iceberg but it is not presented. I've looked into the delection records for this page and these pointers were presented by others in the past and all have been deleted. Only the negative comments have remained. This makes this wikipedia entry a very biased and 'non-neutral' reflection of Daniel Amen.  Fthomas137 8:00, December 19, 2011‎ (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.18.208.21 (talk)


 * This conversation should be happening at the article's talk page. Until then, this will go nowhere. You simply fail to understand our NPOV policy. It doesn't refer to content, but to editorial behavior. Editors must keep their own opinions out of the editing process. They must edit in a "neutral" (aloof from the subject) manner. They must not editorialize, but present the facts and opinions that are found in reliable sources as they are, regardless of how negative or non-neutral those facts and opinions may be. That's why whitewashing (what you've been doing) is not allowed. Positive content is certainly allowed. It just needs to be found in reliable, third party, sources. Instead of complaining, how about finding such content and improving the article? Just keep in mind that we don't write hagiographies here. We tell the good AND the bad. NPOV requires that. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This article does not provide a neutral/unbiased view of the person. It does not provide enough information about the person.  It is negative and it seems personal.  Research hospitals, labs, and universities are all using SPECT scanners to diagnose the dysfunctions of the brain that is linked to abnormal behaviors.  It's an easy search on google to see that there are many researches going on with SPECT scan.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockworks9 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, but remind editors about WP:BLP Hi, I came to this article after reading a post about this AfD on the admin noticeboard. I've never heard of this person before, but googling this person's name seems to indicate sufficient notability.  However, the section titled "Criticism and response" seems to have some problems.  First of all, Wikipedia articles shouldn't have criticism sections, let alone for BLPs.  Second, this section seems to engage in the dispute, rather than report on it in a disinterested and dispassionate tone.  Roughly 50% of the article is devoted to this section.  That's not good.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Relisting for a full 7-day period, starting today, as this AfD nomination was never completed. --MuZemike 00:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --MuZemike 00:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 'Keep I don;t think we could possibly delete a perthe discussion of son who is a Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, and who has published multiple important books on his field.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment This is not an article to delete, as there are sufficient reliable sources to support notability. The problem is that the criticism section has taken over the article, and that is not right. Either the criticism section should be contracted, or the section about his work and career is to be expanded. Also the criticism section should be lowered, so that it is more at the end of the article. (I will do that now). MakeSense64 (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This is best dealt with on the talk page, but the problem is, is that there aren't any sources discussing Amen's research positively AFAIK. As I explained here there are better sources (in academic journals) for the criticism section. SmartSE (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * keep and watch. We are not likely to delete the article on a Distinguished Fellow of the APA, even if some aspects of it have been criticized. We are required by policy to make the article fair.The criticism section, as it stood, was not fair, giving allegations as statements of fact and relying on very weak sources. I have done some reorganization to facilitate further editing, but more work is needed, as Smartse suggests, this includes better references.  I do not think we now regard Quackwatch as a RS for BLP, so unless what they say can be clearly backed up by better sources, it needs to be qualified or perhaps removed. If criticisms of his work on diet are included, it must be said just what his work on this subject is, both in his latest book and in earlier publications. We cannot say there are no scientific studies demonstrating it, though we can quote someone responsible who has said it in a peer-reviewed publication--that does not include QW. All this needs to be addressed. But through editing, not deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 09:13, 16 January 2012 (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.