Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Schwartz


 * 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. Not just because the !vote count is pretty even, but also because there seems to be fundamental disagreement (with plausible arguments on both sides) if the sources presented qualify as WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Erika Schwartz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article fails to establish notability per WP:GNG or WP:BLP. Dr. Schwartz appears to be no more than a promoter of "natural" hormones, having transformed herself into a self-promoted business woman selling pseudoscience. Bioidentical hormones are a fringe medical treatment. I spent some time today cleaning up the article and removing the worst of the unreliable citations, but several still remain. At least they now have URLs for verification. My main issue is that there are only two articles which discuss her in-depth: the Vogue piece and the one in the Daily Mail. These are sources not known for their reliable reporting on medical topics but are known to be used by marketing firms for client promotion. The NY Times article is a book review, and is therefore promotional. The CBS story mentions the Dr. and her hormones, but also does not discuss her in-depth. There is one peer-reviewed journal article which mentions Dr. Schwartz explicitly as a promoter of pseudoscience, but it does not discuss her in any depth, rather just citing her website as a source of misinformation. The other sources are not-reliable, but are promotional and advert-like. In my opinion, this article is barely more than a puff piece, as Dr. Schwartz has done nothing more than make a business selling "natural" hormones to her patients and writing books about her fringe theories, which benefits from press junkets. Delta13C (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC) I forgot to mention that I do not think the Dr. passes notability per WP:AUTHOR either, as her works have not gained significant critical attention or been recognized outside of fringe and low-visibility venues. Delta13C (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as it stands - is very short on RSes, as you note - a BLP can't be allowed to stay with this sort of paucity of RSes - David Gerard (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, possibly redirect to the article on bioidentical hormones. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree it needs to be rewritten as the revision history definitely shows that the fringe topics have been suppressed and has been edited pretty promotionally in the past, but she's mentioned on T. S. Wiley, Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy and Humanix Books which mention some controversy that isn't included here for some reason. I think keeping and adding info on her pseudoscience/controversy would be more useful Burroughs&#39;10 (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think she rises above the strict requirements for wp:BLP? Delta13C (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * At present the article is insufficient to keep as a BLP. You would need to add the actual WP:RSes, not just hope they exist - David Gerard (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  10:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  10:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FRINGEBLP. The best argument is that she is notable for her work in fringe medical treatments, but I'm not seeing evidence of this. jps (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't like woo or any non-scientific fringe nonsense, but I'd rather that people find neutral information about woo on places like Wikipedia than on any other source (like Oprah or Dr. Oz or something like that). This article mentions the (obvious) controversy right away--that's good! She passes GNG in mulitple sources. New York Times reviews aren't considered promotional. They can be used on Wiki to establish notability for an author's work. A quick search on EBSCO shows many hits for her, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Megalibrarygirl. It is not sufficient to cite a number of search results from EBSCO as a criterion to meet GNG. I looked at the link you provided to the results and they are nearly all self-authored articles that appear in the Daily Mail. Notability must be established from multiple independent sources that cover the person in-depth. I still do not see this for the hormone doctor. If you find sources that meet this threshold and that are not cited in the WP article, please make it known. Delta13C (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . She passes GNG with what's in the article already. The EBSCO search was just to show there's other stuff out there. That was just EBSCO. You're right, most of the hits were authored by her, but not all. A Highbeam search for example shows other articles about her. I don't like what she's selling: I find this kind of pseudoscience repugnant. But like I stated earlier, it's better that people can find her on Wiki where the article will show the truth. She's notable, so her article should stand. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, she's published a lot, but this isn't an article about "Erika Sachwartz's puff pieces". This is an article about the person herself. It is a biography and as such we need sources about her -- not just things written by her in style sections of newspapers or on natural health blogs. jps (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete marginal WP:BLP, all sources found is on her fringe theories and not about her themselves. Violates WP:GNG and BLP. 166.164.37.67 (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * delete, likely a strong one - article does not satisfy WP:GNG, as reliable sources are few and far between to meet the in-depth and third-party coverage needed for WP:BLP. One or two sources that cover this doctor in marginal biographical detail but in great detail of her fringe practices do not do the job. The fact that she has authored numerous promotional articles about her own business enterprises further demonstrates that she is reaching with great challenge for notability in the public sector, and therefore, fails to do so given no one really seems to write anything about her. In this case it is important to stick with WP:FRINGEBLP in deciding the matter. 128.196.130.121 (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment on some of the comments/arguments above - "The article fails to establish notability per WP:GNG or WP:BLP." and "At present the article is insufficient to keep as a BLP You would need to add the actual WP:RSes, not just hope they exist" - an article in Wikipedia does not have to establish the notability of its subject, nor do actual WP:RSes have to be added, a subject can be notable and have a poorly written article, please see Article content does not determine notability. Also - "This is an article about the person herself. It is a biography and as such we need sources about her" - not necessarily, although WP:BASIC states "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]" which may appear to mean coverage about the subject, WP:AUTHOR states that a subject is notable if "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 subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.", so that if there are multiple reviews of her books, then that will suffice. Also regargding BLPs requiring indepth sources, WP:BASIC specifically states - "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability", so again no, there do not have to be indepth coverage of the subject (but then, there will need to be a lot more).Coolabahapple (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Coolabahapple. Based on your detailed accounting, I still see that notability is not established, as none of the WP:BASIC criteria are met given the sources in existence. Delta13C (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * thats cool Delta13C, just wanted to clarify things, may add something for the 'keeps' after some zzzzzs. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. (note, some of these cites are already in the article, apologies in advance for length of the following:)) Numerous reviews of her books, Publishers Weekly reviewed THE 30-DAY NATURAL HORMONE PLAN: Look and Feel Young Without Synthetic HRT - "The strength of Schwartz's program is that it's designed to be gradually introduced into one's lifestyle." and "These strategies will be helpful to menopausal women and others with hormonal imbalance who want to avoid any possible health risks in taking synthetic hormones.",, and THE TEEN WEIGHT-LOSS SOLUTION: The Safe and Effective Path to Health and Self-Confidence - "This is an eye-opening book for parents who want to help their teenage daughters explore natural methods of safely managing the weight gain, acne and hormonal changes common to female adolescence.", , The New York Times review of The Hormone Solution is extremely short and just states whats in the book ie. "Dr. Schwartz contends that natural hormones, including progesterone and estrogen, seem to be the best substances to treat imbalances without creating side effects. She covers their use in PMS, mood swings, postpartum depression, hot flashes and loss of libido. And since hormone imbalance is not limited to menopausal women, she discusses hormones' value in women of all ages and in men.", Not all of the EBSCO results are self-authored articles, here are yet more book reviews -  - reviews of The Teen Weight-Loss Solution and  of The 30-Day Natural Hormone Plan appearing in the Library Journal,  - review of The Hormone Solution: appearing in Natural Health Magazine (presume the US. edition).
 * Daily Mirror interviewed Schwartz, which gives her background (needs verification), the way she treats and a discussion on Natural hormones, some of the journals in which Schwartz' books are cited/mentioned include - :in more.com, p140 - "as well as some by doctors (such as The Hormone Solution by Erika Schwartz, MD, .. claimed that customized compounded BHT would help women regain their libidos and youthful bodies.", , in Journal of General Internal Medicine article Bioidentical Hormones for Menopausal Hormone Therapy: Variation on a Theme of 2007 under Health Claims section- "Several physicians promote these hormones. Erica Schwartz, MD, author of The Hormone Solution and The 30-Day Natural Hormone Plan evaluates patients through telephone interviews and prescribes hormone treatment. Schwartz states on her web site, “‘Natural’ Bio Identical Hormones are exactly the same as the hormones your body made when you were younger except they don’t have the same adverse side effects commonly associated with ‘Synthetic’ Hormone Replacement Therapy.”", [,

Here is a Fox News piece, Doctors Challenge Suzanne Somers' Anti-Aging Advice - "She has gone too far,” says Erika Schwartz, MD, a New York doctor who spearheaded the letter-writing campaign", challenging some of Somers' claims. CBS mentions her here in ''Menopause Therapy Sparks Controversy'' - "Dr. Erika Schwartz, author of four books about menopause, is an advocate for bioidenticals, prescribing them to others and herself." And finally WorldCat shows her books being held in numerous libraries eg. The 30-day natural hormone plan in OVER 300 libraries -, The teen weight-loss solution in around 300 libraries - , Natural energy : from tired to terrific in 10 days in around 220 libraries - , The hormone solution in over 150 libraries -. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are claiming she passes GNG because she is mentioned in the just the CBS, Fox, and Daily Mail stories, albeit with almost no biographical information and little attention paid to the validity of her claims? You are also claiming she passes WP:AUTHOR because of the numerous fringe medically oriented books for lay audiences that she has authored or co-authored for which there are but a small handful of reviews, albeit not appearing in a diversity of venues? I am not sure that library holdings count much to pass WP:AUTHOR. To pass these benchmarks, I'd expect her to have been covered many more times by a greater number of sources, academic and popular. I'd further expect her treatments to have been the subject of scientific investigation. The Journal of General Internal Medicine barely mentions her, except to say that her website is a source of misinformation. It makes sense to me to have Dr. Oz or Dr. Andrew Weil, even though they are fringe-y, pass GNG, but not a very low profile fringe doctor like Erika Schwartz. I think it is important to consider the possibility that it is too soon for Dr. Schwartz. Delta13C (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep If she pushes pseudoscience then where do you think will people find out about other than here in a criticism section. Google results will be full of praise and admiration without any criticism. But here the criticism will be in plain view. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Appropriate neutral sourced article on somewhat notable author. Library holdings are relevant, though not determinative-- though 300 holds for popular health isn't all that spectacular. . There are reviews, though not ideally full ones. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply  here 18:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. A biography of a person who is at best marginally notable, sourced primarily to non-reliable sources? How is this even a point of contention? our BLPs have higher thresholds than other articles for good reason. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 19:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Essentially per Megalibrarygirl. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:41, 29 January 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.