Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn K. Jones


 * 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'm giving more weight to the opinions of established editors, who conclude that the subject does not meet our inclusion requirements.  Sandstein  07:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Marilyn K. Jones

 * – ( View AfD View log )

advertising the job. can of truth 18:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Does this qualify for speedy keep, under "no argument put forward by nominator"? The argument is incomprehensible, so... In any case, I vote keep because the only possible meaning of those six words is that it's written like an advertisement, but even that's untrue. Inter  change  able | talk to me  18:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep I created this page so obviously I vote to keep the article. Dr Jones was my professor and I have learned a lot from her. She has written several books and her unique approach is appreciated by millions of people worldwide. I am trying to collect more information and references and will be adding those here in the near future. I hope that others vote to keep this article so I can contribute more about this great professor and doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaree (talk • contribs)
 * Comment. Whether the article is deleted is decided by consensus, not number of votes. See Before_commenting_in_a_deletion_discussion. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep due to lack of a clear argument to delete. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Zero claim of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete. No plausible assertion of notability, fails WP:BLP. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added some citations to the journals and books that she is part of. Hope that helps in asserting some notability. Thanks Jaree 22:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Strong delete Although I agree with the editors above who complain about the unclear nom, I don't think that unhappiness with the nom is sufficient grounds for a !vote, the article has to be judged on iots merits, regardless the nom. The sources added to the article are absolutely insufficient to establish notability. Yes, Dr. Jones has published and co-authored presentations at scientific meetings. This is something that goes for every academic. Does she go above the median and fulfill any of the criteria of WP:PROF, however? Obviously not. --Crusio (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Absurd nom. Her studies have been mentioned in some important writings and there is extensive bit of research under her name, that is enough to convince me that she deserves a WP mention. (talk) Ffbcso22 (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC) — Ffbcso22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep I had a little research of Marilyn K. Jones outside Wikipedia and found, her article would be useful.can of truth 19:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * So after a mysterious AfD nomination you are now mysteriously changing your mind. Could you share with us the results of your "research of Marilyn K. Jones outside Wikipedia"? Any useful sources? The same goes for Ffbcso22 above. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. No claim of notability notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Replay to  Crusio:
 * 1) This may prove that she is a doctor or a professor
 * 2) This like is not too useful but please check it
 * 3) From a bussiness site but not valid i hope
 * 4) This all will tell you the answer
 * Nobody denies that she's a dentist. But none of the links that you provided shows anything beyond that. There still is nothing showing any notability whatsoever. Please read WP:PROF to see what is needed. --Crusio (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If that is not enough to convince anyone that she is notable enough, lets take a look at her journals and books on topics ranging from Alcoholism to Psychology and her research on psychology of student teacher relationship. Forget the journals and books in which you may have to sift through few pages to find her name (which obviously no one here is going to bother to do) even if you just take a look at Google (seems like thats the only credibility indicator here) you will find more journals and books titled by her or about her than anyone here on AfD, not just that, lets take a look at few other dental professionals on wikipedia. Its clear that she is way more notable than half of that list, just by doing a google search and nothing else. I recommend that if you are not a professional in the industry you do not voice your opinion because your knowledge is going to be limited to what is on Google. I dont see a valid case presented by users who wish to delete this article. The stupid nomination and ignorant comments on her lack of notability without proper research do not offer any substantial evidence or advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xsyntheticx (talk • contribs) 22:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC) — Xsyntheticx (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Subject passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:GNG. The article notes "extensive research", but lists this publication, which further checking shows to be nothing more than the dissertation of a Marilyn K. Jones, except in psychology (the article does not mention such a degree, so it's unclear whether this is actually the same person). GS searching on her name seems to return many pages of false-positives and there is nothing in WoS. The above "keep" votes seem to focus on either the procedural aspect of the AfD itself, or assert the same "extensive research" without showing anything that meets WP:RS. For example, the above 4 sources are all web flotsam. I would say this is an uncontroversial "delete". Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete Cannot find RS, and the dissertation reference may not be the same person, as is alluded to by Agricola44, and even if it were the same person, it seems to be a degree dissertaion, and seems to be of quite unclear notability. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of . —  ξ xplicit  19:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep* First of all nomination makes no sense and its no surprise that the nominator has been blocked. This should fall under speedy keep but I understand the concerns of other users on this page. I have been in dental industry for a long time, infact I believe I am notable enough to have my own page, my point is that I know more about this industry than almost everyone who commented here. I will try to offer my insight on this debate. Marilyn Jones is a well known dentist not just in state of Texas but in the whole US as someone who is fighting for healthy alternatives, all by herself (atleast here in the US). According to WP:PROF the number one criteria "# The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." applies to Marilyn Jones. She is the only board certified dentist and researcher who is leading the cause for a more healthy and natural dentistry which is called "Holistic dentistry". Now obviously there is a lot of debate about this approach and both parties have good arguments, its a relatively new concept so it is going to take some time before it is considered a separate branch by general public but most dentists and professionals already do. Now there a lot of dentists and scholars who label themselves as using this approach of dentistry but nobody is doing as much to promote and research this approach as Yoshiaki Omura and Marilyn Jones. These two have been doing a number of things all over the world, including symposiums and independent researches, from New York to Tokyo, as you can verify from the article itself and independent resources. Besides her active role in the research and marketing of this new approach, she is accepted to be the most notable and knowledgeable by the dentists all over the US, now ofcourse all of them have a problem accepting her new approach and crediting her research because that will destroy the core of dental business. 98% or more dental offices right now promote the use of mercury and fluoride in treatment and thats what they use in their clinics, do a little bit research on the harms and you will get a good picture of why nobody will give credibility to Marilyn Jones even when its well deserved. Now ofcourse there are some who are more concerned about their patients rather than making money and those professionals are right by her side. There are numerous authors who have tried to promote her studies. Just like who small health organizations and clubs cant fight against giant tobacco companies, she is having a hard time trying to compete with the whole dental industry and so are those authors who have published her research and those dentists who accept her approach. You can pick up a number of books on holistic dentistry or natural approach to dentistry (I wish I was at library to add the ISBN numbers here but here is one 1929661134, also mentioned in article) There are whole chapters dedicated to her studies. If you do your research, instead of leaving a one line comment here by doing a simple google search you wont deny her notability. Even based on WP:PROF standards, there is already enough evidence of her notability. She is the known dentist in the 4th largest city of US, Houston and the largest state in US, Texas.
 * If you have references to support your claims, I suggest that you add the references to the page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said earlier, its hard for me to find something on Saturday evening sitting at home with no access to books and other material. I am limited to Google search myself, that anyone can do by clicking on the links above. Yes, it doesnt show a lot of books and journals under her name but what you do see is more than enough to get a better understanding. There are atleast 5 encyclopedia references and over 15 books that are either written by Marilyn Jones or talk about her approach which you can find in Google but lets not limit our research to Google. I dont remember the ISBN or titles off the top of my head besides the few that are mentioned in the article itself. Even if we take that one reference that we have available! take a look at that book. There are 60 pages of that well known book that are dedicated to her studies. I have personally read atleast 5 other publications (books or journals) that I dont remember right now since its been over a year but I will try to find them and add them to the article when I get some time to do more research. Having a doctorate degree, being a professor at one of the largest universities of US and being a director of an organization promoting a new field of dentistry and all of this being verified by a simple google search leading to 100s of references cannot be done by someone who is not notable. Purpose of AfD is to clean wikipedia from trash articles or from spam, this is neither. I agree that this article needs a lot of work and it definitely needs more references and information which is only possible if this article is not deleted. I am kind of surprised to see no mention of Holistic Dentistry whatsoever on wikipedia and small one paragraph article on Holistic Health which is a shame because that field is much bigger than stupid Chiropractic field that has 100s if not thousands of articles listed on wikipedia. I do plan on adding a lot of information in Holistic Health and Holistic Dentistry in coming few weeks, I think wikipedia needs that information asap. Xsyntheticx (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC) — Xsyntheticx (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment I am not very knowledgeable on how wikipedia operates because I have not done many edits myself. It is going to take me some time to learn some of the stuff, in the mean time if there is someone reading this page who is knowledgeable enough to make contributions to Holistic Health and make a new page for Holistic Dentistry. I will be more than happy to help that person in collecting information or any other help that s/he may need.Xsyntheticx (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC) — Xsyntheticx (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * In the light of the arguments brought forward by Xsyntheticx, I change my !vote from "delete" to "strong delete". --Crusio (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article fails to make any assertion of notability, and provides no sources that could pass WP:GNG. Additionally, I suspect that it conflates more than one person with the same name. There's a Marilyn K. Jones who has a reasonable citation record on the subject of women and alcoholism, but that's not a subject one would expect a dentist to publish on, and there's a different Marilyn K. Jones (now Marilyn Jones-Gotman) who looks more likely to be the expert on that subject. If we can't even verify that we're talking about a single person or multiple unrelated people, we shouldn't have an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Its the same person. Article confirms that and you can verify so by the references. She got her doctorate degree in dentistry in 1979 as mentioned in the article. All the research on subject of alcoholism and psychology is before she got her doctorate degree, if you check the dates of those publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xsyntheticx (talk • contribs) 02:42, 11 September 2011 (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.