Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana Parish

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 could repeat what what Vanamonde93 said at the related AfD, for Andrew Hollander. The SPAs have come out, but unfortunately for them, none of them actually put forward arguments to bolster their case. So, the "deletes" have it. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Parish[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Dana Parish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I just reverted an edit that had a lot of unsourced puffery about singer/songwriter Dana Parish. This caused me to review the article and edit history. The article is filled with dubious puffery. Also, the article is sourced mostly from Parish herself or from her own PR-associates, with the exception of an NY Post article.

There is no evidence of "significant coverage" required for notability. It's possible that many of the edits (along with edits of Parish's husband Andrew Hollander) are by someone close to the subject. The talk page warns about 2015 concerns about conflicts of interest, and the creator of this article also edited Hollander's page.

Parish has no scientific credentials, but she co-authored a 2021 book attempting to legitimize fringe beliefs and conspiracy theories about infectious diseases like Lyme disease, bartonella, and COVID. But unlike conspiracy theorists like Judy Mikovits, her beliefs claiming that autoimmune diseases and many other conditions are related to chronic Lyme disease never received "significant coverage" from reliable sources for notability. Accordingly, I think it is a good idea to delete this article. ScienceFlyer (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This recommendation for profile removal makes no sense. I loved Dana's music industry work with Idina Menzel,,,which is when I started following her. I found her personal story fascinating including the fact that her Yale trained doctor saved her life! I loved that they wrote a top selling book together to help doctors and patients. Why is a random person allowed to make strange comments and unfound accusations? Laurarae1966 (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)— Laurarae1966 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • KEEP I see this is a personal attack on Parish and her husband and that Parish’s page was vandalized before. This is not allowed. I have spent time verifying her citations and notability is met. Crazy4science (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)— Crazy4science (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I looked up these references and they are all valid. I am not sure why this author is being targeted but her book is legitimate and was endorsed by Sanjay Gupta, George Church and others. It is not fringe. I read it after her interview on The Doctors.
List of links
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio Coscolín (talk • contribs) 01:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The recommendation to delete this page is clearly a personal attack and has no merit. Dana Parish is an author signed to Harper Collins and a songwriter signed to Sony Music. There are more than enough references on her page to support her legitimacy. It should be noted that the same person suggesting deletion is trying to delete her husband's Wikipedia page as well (also with no legitimate reason since his page is also well referenced and he has worked on many high profile projects with acclaimed recording artists and filmmakers), all the more evidence that these are personal attacks and harassment. magic4950 (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC) — Magic4950 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • The recommendation to delete is based on lack of notability and reliable sources to support an article. I don't think we can say Parish's book is notable simply because it was published by a big publisher, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (now called HarperCollins). On the contrary, given the marketing force typically available to a large publisher, it's notable that this book has received little attention outside of WP:FRINGE circles. Given the fringe chronic Lyme disease and herbalism topics mentioned in the (paid-for?) Kirkus Review, discussion of this book should be in accordance with WP:NFRINGE.

      And while Parish may have been employed in the music industry for a number of years and worked for some well-known artists, there is no evidence of widespread notability in accordance with Wikipedia:MUSICBIO. Billboard has a page showing a single credit: one of Parish's songs briefly reached #23 on its chart, but there isn't good evidence that this song or album was notable. I haven't found evidence, aside from her own PR firm, to support claims about being "one of the highest-charting independent artists. Parish bested herself, and broke into the Top 10, with the second single".

      The nomination of both this article and the article for Andrew Hollander for deletion was prompted by noticing highly dubious edits made over a period of years by single purpose accounts like yourself Magic4950 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and by a shared editor already identified as potentially having a conflict of interest. Though nominated on the same day, I urge other editors to consider each article and nomination for deletion on its own merits. ScienceFlyer (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      • Fyi, the Kirkus Reviews Indie Reviews (a separate, paid program within Kirkus Reviews) are clearly marked, e.g. example "Review Program: Kirkus Indie". The review I linked in this discussion is not an Indie review. Beccaynr (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh ok thanks! I also composed my other comment before reading yours. ScienceFlyer (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first link alone with the interview on The Doctors should demonstrate Dana's credentials and public notability with regard to both the book she wrote and her early music career. Thats was from just last year, I recall the episode. DubiousPuffery (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not much more than an interview, the program doesn't meet notability standards IMHO. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have now recommended deletion of the page for Parish's husband Andrew Hollander. ScienceFlyer (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Celine Dion Shows Edge, and Tries Out New Characters, on ‘Loved Me Back to Life’ (Billboard, 2013) No See WP:MUSICBIO#1 - in this source primarily about Celine Dion, the artists talk about themselves. Yes No The five short grafs related to the one song co-written by Parish are primarily quotes. e.g. from Parish, Dion, and Parish and Hollander's friend Peter Lloyd, then of Razor & Tie Music Publishing. ✘ No
Long-Haul Covid and the Chronic Illness Debate (Ross Douthat, NYT Opinion, 2021) No Douthat is not independent: "...Phillips is also my physician, with whom I have worked off and on for much of the last five years. I like to think that I would find his argument convincing on its own terms, but my bias is obvious and overwhelming..." Yes No This opinion article is not primarily focused on the book. ✘ No
What happens when coronavirus and Lyme disease intersect? It's a scary time for patients (USAToday, 2020) No Parish is a co-author of this opinion article. ? "Isabel Rose is a writer and board member of Project Lyme. She has lived with Chronic Lyme Disease for more than 40 years. Dana Parish is a Sony/ATV songwriter whose life was derailed by a tick bite in 2014." No This is by Parish, not about Parish. ✘ No
Tick discovery near Northern California beaches prompts warning about Lyme disease (CBS News, 2021) Yes Yes No There is little context available in this brief article, which states Parish contracted Lyme in New Jersey and "At one point she went into heart failure" and quotes her for her opinion about a recent study related to the spread of Lyme-carrying ticks: "I hope that this study will bring light to the fact that it is here" (in California). ✘ No
Lessons From Lyme Disease: Six Reasons The CDC’s COVID-19 Failure Was Predictable (Forbes contributor, 2020) Yes No See WP:FORBESCON Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. No quotes Parish as "a leading Lyme reformer and co-author of a coming book, “Chronic,” that is harshly critical of the CDC." ✘ No
More COVID-concerned colleges going remote in early January, or moving start dates back (Fox News, 2021) Yes ? WP:FOXNEWS There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims. No Does not mention Parish. ✘ No
For Celine Dion, new album was all about choice (USAToday, 2013) No Parish and Hollander are quoted. See WP:MUSICBIO#1 - in this source primarily about Celine Dion, the artists talk about themselves and Dion. Yes No Parish and Hollander talk about Dion, independent detail about their work is minimal. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Beccaynr (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found a 2020 book review from Kirkus Reviews and a 2008 CBS News article that follows her appearance on The Early Show and includes some biographical information and career highlights. The WP:NYPOST is not helpful for supporting notability, but per WP:MUSICBIO, the Billboard charting may help support this article (I have not been able to verify all of the chart-related claims in the article). Beccaynr (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • We'd probably need another book review for AUTHOR, having a charting single is notable, but we don't have enough of each for the article to be kept. Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • We need more than another review for WP:AUTHOR, e.g. per #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 primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews... (emphasis added, because this guideline requires more than multiple reviews for one work). Based on available sources, this article appears suitable for deletion per the second prong of WP:N, because Wikipedia is not WP:PROMO. Beccaynr (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Beccaynr: Thanks for your efforts and comments. Kirkus Reviews is viewed as a sometimes-paid marketing tool, so I question whether it is truly independent of the subject. This review aside, there isn't evidence of widespread notability for this book. There is also no evidence the reviewer is a reliable source for medical topics, since the book promotes herbalism and long-discredited WP:FRINGE alternative medical beliefs about diverse conditions, including multiple sclerosis, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, and psychiatric disorders. I provided some other comments in response to another editor. ScienceFlyer (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The selfpublishingadvice.org website discusses the Kirkus Indie Reviews program, even though they refer to it as "Kirkus Reviews", but it is separate from the unpaid and independent Kirkus Reviews we routinely cite at AfD as contributing support for notability. But as further discussed in the source assessment table I added above, there does not appear to be sufficient support to show this one book is significant or well-known for WP:AUTHOR notability, in addition to insufficient reviews. Per WP:FRINGELEVEL, there also does not appear to be sufficient sourcing, WP:MEDRS or otherwise, to support WP:NBOOK notability for the book at this time. Overall, based on the available sources, it appears we have insufficient independent and reliable support per the applicable notability guidelines, so I !vote delete. Beccaynr (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Not quite enough significant independant coverage (such as reviews) to meet either WP:NAUTHOR or WP:COMPOSER, and not really convinced is enough to meet WP:SINGER. There is some coverage, hence only a weak !vote. Looking at WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS, the Billboard charting is in the "Adult Contemporary" category, which is airplay only in the US, and I'm not convinced is overly significant. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, keep content, don't delete wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio Coscolín (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC) — Sergio Coscolín (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Simply asking to keep isn't really a valid argument as per WP:PLEASEDONT. You need to say what policy/guideline-based reasoning there is for keeping. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/comment/explanation I came to this page and I spent my hours on this situation. This is concerning as this person has targeted Dana Parish (and now her husband Andrew Hollander) before and was likely the one who vandalized her page calling her a “grifter” in her bio, so a series of vandalism do exist. (Redacted)
  • “Science Flyer” is the handle making these attacks on Dana Parish and her husband Andrew Hollander (Redacted). Harming and harassing people is not allowed on Wikipedia. Blocking is an option for continued abuse and harassment.” AppleBoosted (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC) — AppleBoosted (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • ’’’Comment’’’ clearly a vexatious nomination by a troll. They identified a legitimate vulnerability both in the page and in Wikipedia’s culture and they’ve exploited it.2A00:23C7:829E:7E01:BC16:CB7B:9B99:B56D (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • And apples are red. Please sign your posts or we can't consider it as valid. Tis getting to be SNOW again. We should close this down. Oaktree b (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For someone who knows so much about them, is there a COI-conflict of interest? We have nothing in either article to say they are a couple and I can find no sources to support this. People involved in the discussion here seem to know more about both individuals than what's given in either article. Please review the WP:COI requirements if this is the case. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, I usually avoid hot discussions but this page fairly passes WP:GNG we can't doubt that at least. Elena Marcus D (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Elena Marcus D: How so? The Dana Parish page is the number one hit on Google for her name but it only averaged 3 page views per day from July 1, 2015 to July 30, 2022. Amazon says Parish's book was released on February 2, 2021. Nevertheless, the Dana Parish page averaged only 5 page views per day from January 1, 2021 to July 30, 2022.

      There is no good evidence that Parish meets the Wikipedia standards for notability, either for her music or for her book. Both Google trends and the Wikipedia page stats show no evidence of increasing notability. Doing a search in the Wikipedia library's EBSCO database found a single hit for Parish, which was a brief review of the book by a library assistant. A search of Wikipedia library's Proquest database for "dana parish" AND YR(>=2004) revealed only 102 results, most of which are duplicates, passing mentions, unrelated entities (i.e. not the Dana Parish of the article), press releases, and some of the other references already discussed here. ScienceFlyer (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • &*Today I learned a new thing from you that notability is associated to daily page views. Thanks Elena Marcus D (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • As per WP:NBIO, popularity is very much secondary. Sources are what matter for WP:NOTABILITY, please see WP:NBASIC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Page views can be bought; you can basically set up a farm that only views your page over and over on computers. Nothing helpful for notability. Certainly can be an indication of popularity, doesn't help notability standards on wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you proposing that we delete every people-page that has fewer than 5 views per day? Because that would be the only *fair* policy here, rather than nominating only this page for deletion. I, also, do not see anything in WP:NBIO about page views. Test35965 (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but hold the salt WP:TOOSOON there’s always the possibility that this subject may become notable at a later date. As things stand, though, there’s no way you’ll get anything more than a stub out of these sources and in my experience WP:GNG is usually unambiguous and symbiotic with most alternative notability criteria. As for the troll, they won’t be able to harass the subject if there’s no Wikipedia entry to weaponise, so we’ll be getting two birds stoned at once.2A00:23C7:829E:7E01:78D8:3439:72E:BA24 (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her sources and media coverage are from reliable sources I think I don't have to mention each source, Wikipedia should investigate because what I'm reading here this whole XFD process looks fishy. I will also leave comments on her husband's XFD. 2603:8001:9300:9656:7C7E:ED5:68D0:F92C (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We have, it's been socks mostly commenting. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has good sources based on her occupations. This article was developed in December 2013 and suddenly it got listed in AFD and this seems like an targeted attack in this article.Trbrosfriday (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that I've semi protected this AfD as it seems to be the target of some sort of meatpuppetry campaign. firefly ( t · c ) 21:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect These single purpose accounts are going to recreate this the moment that it's deleted, so please protect it. Other than that, im not really sure we need such a promo piece as this. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before counting or analysis the keep and delete vote please do check on the talk page of Handmeanotherbagofthemchips and it seems like a targeted attack.I have mentioned the same details in another AfD as the same person targeting this article too. Losovefa (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's have a discussion without SPAs
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to draft. I see some glimmerings in the NY Post article (which is listed as two separate references). I suspect a deeper search may uncover more, but I would leave it to an AFC reviewer to let it back in. BD2412 T 02:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At WP:RSP, the description for WP:NYPOST includes A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. I searched for more sources and posted what I found above but do not believe it is sufficient to support notability. Based on the apparent meatpuppetry campaign, I agree that salting this article seems appropriate. Beccaynr (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, and Entertainment. ScienceFlyer (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hollander's page has been deleted, I'd agree to a SALT here too, it seems everyone is crawling out of the woodwork on these nominations; would be nice if they'd stick around and help with the other AfD discussions. This one has been a good learning experience for all involved. Oaktree b (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dana_Parish&oldid=1114281869"