Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Naomi Remen


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 01:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Rachel Naomi Remen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. None of the online references are independent sources. The first few pages of hits from a Google search include: clearly non-independent sources such as www.rachelremen.com, this Wikipedia article, Facebook, Twitter, pages on web sites selling her books, clearly promotional pages, and web pages written by (not about) Rachel Naomi Remen, but there is nothing that could be regarded as an independent reliable source.

That leaves as a possible independent source the one book cited, "A Life in Medicine: A Literary Anthology". According to Google books, "A Life in Medicine collects stories, poems, and essays by and for those in the healing profession, who are struggling to keep up with the science while staying true to the humanitarian goals at the heart of their work. Organized around the central themes of altruism, knowledge, skill, and duty, the book includes contributions from well-known authors, doctors, nurses, practitioners, and patients." That does not suggest an independent source. The book is listed at http://www.goodreads.com/author/list/54752.Rachel_Naomi_Remen, a page headed "Books by Rachel Naomi Remen", which suggests that she may be a contributor to the book, rather than being written about in it. Excerpts from the book are visible as a Google preview. Unfortunately, the page cited in the article (page 91) is excluded from the preview, but page 92 is visible, and contains nothing connected with her, so the content by or about her cannot be very extensive; it can scarcely be substantial enough on its own to demonstrate notability, even if it is about her, rather than by her.

(A PROD on the article was contested nearly a year ago by an IP editor.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. S.G.(GH) ping! 10:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. S.G.(GH) ping! 10:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. S.G.(GH) ping! 10:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete this is promotional. As  should tell you, no self-described "pioneer" of "integrative medicine" (that is the integration of quackery/pseudomedicine with medicine (otherwise known as medicine)) is not exactly academically WP:MAINSTREAM, although money is there to be made if you're willing to allow your own cognitive biases to take control.  Since, if you're making money selling snake oil to cancer patients you can't be wrong can you? Fails WP:PROF. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: The New York times piece by Bornstein (added as a ref) seems to me substantiate the claim that her The Healer's Art stuff is used in medical schools throughout the US. (This ref also supports this). This page The National Library of Medicine (NLM), Changing the face of medecine: Celebrating America's Women Physicians - Dr Rachel Naomi Remen also seems useful. These and the popularity of her popular books would seem enough to me for notability. I am against quackery/pseudomedicine of which there is a lot about but some of the being nice to patients and trying to make them happy stuff is often lumped in with that which I think is unfortunate. Rewriting to remove worries would seem better than deleting to me. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC))
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. though the current article may be overly promotional, she is a significant academic figure and published author from a major press, with multiple reprints, and how is an official government site not an appropriate source: the National Library of Medicine says "Dr. Remen is clinical professor of family and community medicine at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) School of Medicine, where she is also Director of the innovative UCSF course, "The Healer's Art." She is director of the Institute for the Study of Health and Illness, which she founded in 1993, a professional development program for graduate physicians. She is the author of two widely read books Kitchen Table Wisdom: Stories That Heal, published in 1996, and My Grandfather's Blessings: Stories of Strength, Refuge and Belonging, published in 2000.". Any discussion of quackery can be just thrown out, right now. I am professionally aware that her (and similar) ideas are absolutely used in medicine today (i cant say whether she created them or just promoted them, though). I am also professionally aware of her popularity as a writer. yes, 2 different fields, though i know my own direct observations dont qualify her. overall, enough refs show notability. clean up may be required. There is also this bio from a presumably unbiased website, which indicates her CV nicely: Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Well known author with reliable sourcing per AUTHOR. -- Green  C  00:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Author of a NY Times bestseller => notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2014 (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.