Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Schwartz (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  13:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Erika Schwartz
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BIO, no updates since tag placed in August 2016 Jsmith206 (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: Very little info on her, per the first nomination for deletion. Delta13C (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets WP:GNG. Article could use expansion and clean up, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There are not enough sources out there to expand the article. Her bio section is only supported by her own website, and the rest of the article is basically a back and forth between her quack claims and criticism of them. Delta13C (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See also closing editor statement: Articles for deletion/Erika Schwartz. Hmlarson (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: I understand the interest in improving the page, however biographies on Erika Schwartz from reliable sources do not exist. The current citations are snippets likely placed by publicity teams. Consequently, since the last AFD request, there have been no valuable additions to the page despite the maintenance tag (refimprove) in August. Thus, attempts to find reliable sources to verify have failed. In the last AFD, editors felt that Schwartz fails to meet the relevant notability guideline; she lacks significant in-depth coverage from reliable sources (WP:BIO). This combination seems to warrants deletion. Morganglick (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:GNG with extensive coverage on her and her work from sources like the New York Times, the Daily Mail, USA Today, CBS News and others. --Oakshade (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources that are proving her "notability" violate several rules of Wikipedia.
 * 1. One source links to ProQuest which violates WP:ELREG. There is also a WSJ article that also violates WP:ELREG


 * 2. The first NY Times article (BOOKS ON HEALTH, Standing up for Nature) is a page about her book, rather than establishing biographical facts.


 * 3. The springerlink resource is from 2007 which speaks to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.


 * 4. Finally, there is a WP:ELDEAD link in the article. They have linked to an archived version on Web Archive but the original link is still dead


 * 5. Her personal website is used as a resource, when it does not support the statement at all

At a glance, these support WP:GNG, but once investigated do not prove her notability. Once you remove these sources, and the statements that go along with them, she loses WP:GNG Jsmith206 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You are only speaking of some of the sources in the article at time of AfD, not the additional ones presented here and a couple of other ones in the article that establish notability (except the NYT one which I'll get to). WP:Notability makes it explicitly clear that notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article.  That something like her personal website is used as a source is just a red herring.  It's the existence of qualifying sources that count to notability, not possible flawed sources in the article at time of AfD.  For the WP:ELDEAD issue, WP:GNG makes it very clear that the sources don't need to be available online.  As for the NYT book review, that the New York Times reviewed her book is further coverage on her and her work and further indication of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oakshade, You only added here two sources that are not cited in the article. The first one of these is the Daily Mail piece which is low quality because it represents churnalism, rather that in-depth coverage independent of the subject. The other one you added here is the USA Today article which is barely anything more than the result of her book publisher running a press junket, which does not add any relevant biographical information. There still remains a severe lack of sources that cover her at the level needed to write even a minimal BLP. Delta13C (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Having a second look at that Daily Mail article and I see it is really in depth. Your original research speculation that journalist Frances Hardy is just copying a press-release is noted - by the way, without any evidence of such, you just committed a WP:BLP violation - but the coverage of this person demonstrates there is a high amount of sources. --Oakshade (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG. Notability is established from in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources, which this page lacks. The sources do not show recognition from the medical community, but rather the press as a result of promotional activity (around her book releases). Techwikiwitty (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Delete' - as said by Techwikikitty above, notability is established through coverage in reliable sources sufficient to provide enough data for a standalone article. There might be sufficient sourcing for an article on one or more of her books, or her theory or theories, but not so far as I can see on the lady herself. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Probably a great person and very capable in her vocation, but authoring some non-notable books don't make you notable. I'm not seeing the significant coverage that is needed. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are not enough sources and that introduces tensions between two competing imperatives: WP:BLP versus WP:NPOV. Any article needs to be absolutely clear that her ideas are bogus, but we cannot do that without overwhelming the scant biographical data there is and ending up as a WP:COATRACK on which to hang the reality-based consensus on bioidentical hormones. Guy (Help!) 01:13, 7 December 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.