Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Zand


 * 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. Biblio worm  19:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Janet Zand

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article does not pass GNG or BLP, as its sources are not reliable and independent nor do they discuss the subject in-depth. A Google search for better sources revealed nothing. Delta13C (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Article written by SPA promoting a non-notable BLP which fails GNG. Valoem   talk   contrib  09:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It is difficult for me to recommend deletion of a person about whom Stern said Janet Zand ist so etwas wie Hollywoods Guru für alternative Medizin und Behandlungsmethoden. here.  Zand was cofounder of Zand Herbal Products, that worked for more than two decades as a market leader in the herbal industry.  (indexed by Gale Group in Academic OneFile). She is an inventor, US Patent Issued to Board of Regents, the University of Texas System, Neogenis Labs on Feb. 24 for "Nitrite Formulations and Their Use as Nitric Oxide Prodrugs" and her many published works are cited. (GoogleScholar)  There is an in-depth article about her in  where Smith says that she was a trailblazer in the natural health world of herbs, homeopathy and acupuncture. In  she was noted as one of the best minds in holistic health. --Bejnar (talk)
 * Hi, Bejnar. I'm not sure that those last sources you cited are reliable. It appears you have access to these publications (Total Health and Natural Health). Can you please link to or post excerpts of these? I am also not convinced that citing a patent is evidence that she is notable. The Stern mention of Zand is barely in-depth. That article mentions she is "Hollywood's guru for alternative medicine," which is a statement very complicated with WP:FRINGE issues. Delta13C (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The patent was used simply to show breadth of her work, and help explain why she is considered both a trailbrazer and justified in being placed in the "Hall of Legends", it doesn't go to coverage, but I do believe that it helps show that her research has made a significant impact in her discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources, regardless of whether it is a WP:FRINGE discipline. Both Total Health and Natural Health are magazines with both fact-checking and editorial oversight, regardless of whether they are dealing with a WP:FRINGE topic. Again, I accessed their full-text via Gale, this time via their magazine index. As the entire Total Health article was about Zane, I am faced with a copyright problem in providing a copy. You might check worldcat.org to see if a library near you has holdings, ; or many public libraries and educational libraries subscribe to Gale daatabases, so you might have access quite nearby. (I used the Gale databases at my local public library.)  The Stern article is again not so-much for coverage, as to show her position in the field, which I believe provides her notability, so long as there is other coverage, which there is. The Natural Health article covers a number of individuals, but with respect to Zand, in addition to including her at the top of her field, as background the author acknowledges Zand as author of Smart Medicine for Healthier Living (Avery, 1999), and goes on to discuss Zand's work with phosphatidylserine and its affects on memory and concentration. Not as much depth as I would like, especially as compared to the Smith article. The author, Hillari Dowdle, was a regular contributor to Natural Health. I hope this helps. --Bejnar (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your thorough reply, but I disagree on several points. A patent cannot indicate that the submitter is a "trailblazer." With such a description, you are using puffery, which extraordinarly exceeds the scope of the patent as a source of information about Zand. How does this indicate she has made any kind of scientific impact? Are there scholarly works to demonstrate this claim that you know about? I could not find any. I am suspicious of the magazines Total Health and Natural Health being reliable sources. They are self-claimed alt-med publications, which also suffer from fringe issues. What does being at the "top of her field" actually mean in terms of achievements, contributions, or other sources of notability? I see you write "phosphatidylserine" in your argument, but when I search for her name with that term, the only results are naturalnews.com and its ilk. Delta13C (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't help you with your beliefs. I did not pick the word "trailbrazer" it comes from the Smith article, I prefer the pioneer, but that has its connotation as well. Look at her articles in GoogleScholar and how they are cited; it won't change your mind, but it might give you a better idea of where I am coming from.  Generally, I am considered a "deletionist" (see []); but when I find more than sixty articles mentioning or covering Janet Zand in a magazine index which does not contain all the cruft on Google, I give things a second look. I am not one to exclude someone on the basis that their area is WP:FRINGE.  The factual basis of what they believe may be flawed, but I find that true in the mainstream as well.  We are not here to report "truth", we are here to compile a cultural artifact, an encyclopedia, that reflects the secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete the guidelines for fringe figures apply here, and we do not have enough coverage to justify an article under such guidelines. I would also point out that lots of people, including my own father, have lots of patents (he holds over 20) but come no where near to passing the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for now at best as Books, News, browsers, Highbeam and Scholar all found links here and there but perhaps there's not a noticeably better notable article yet., is there any familiar area insight you can add to this AfD? SwisterTwister   talk  07:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Agree with rationale presented by nominator and John Pack Lambert. The lack of coverage in reliable sources mean that notability has not been demonstrated, when judging against WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMICS. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete In general, fringe sources in popular health are even more prone to promotionalism  than are similar mainstream sources in that field, and are therefore justifiably regarded with some degree of skepticism. But any source will be regarded with skepticism when they make claims of exceptionally great importance for people who seem to have done relatively little. Quite apart from all that, the article is entirely promotional.  DGG ( talk ) 14:08, 23 December 2015 (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.