Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. M. H. Atwater (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. – Joe (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P. M. H. Atwater[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A seriously underreferenced BLP article that relies almost exclusively on self-published sources and reads like the subject's press release, in addition to arguably peddling pseudoscience. I see no indication of the subject meeting WP:ANYBIO or WP:NAUTHOR. The only outside source used to establish notability is an article in the Lancet, but that's just a passing mention in a footnote and hardly enough to establish notability. Even if the subject was notable, I see almost no content in this article that could be salvaged. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stubbify per WP:NAUTHOR. Her book Beyond the Light (ISBN 9780380725403) was reviewed in Library Journal and Publishers Weekly, and she has published extensively in Journal of Near-Death Studies. I am reluctant to rely heavily on the latter, because it seems more than a little fishy even if peer-reviewed. Also gets some media coverage, albeit in a local paper [1]. She is charitably described as an eccentric and more accurately described as a charlatan, but I think she meets NAUTHOR. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What AP said. Prune it way back, but she's a notable author. pburka (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If there's sufficient coverage of one of her books to merit its own article, that can be handled separately but I find very little content about her in reliable sources. Tons in unreliable sources and tons of promotional content but not seeing enough to satisfy WP:AUTHOR at this point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've just done some thorough editing on this page, which should give some indicator as to what the page will look like even *if* we pare it back, but I still don't think she meets WP:NAUTHOR. The one peer-sourced journal cited is not only brief, but is a personal connection to Atwater; the writer later went on to write the introduction for her self-published e-book (it lists a publisher, but the publisher is not actually a publisher; it is a company which facilitates easier self-publishing. Every reference which remains comes either from The Lancet article, or from Atwater's own writings, which I think violates W:NPOV. Similarly, the peer-reviewed discussions I was able to find, as User:AleatoryPonderings indicates, is a step beyond fishy. If we are to overhaul the article, it will need to be made more explicit that Atwater is not an expert, her qualifications are not from reputable institutions (you can apply for an honourary PHD from the Sri Lankan institution she received one from), and her expertise is non-scientific medicine. Similarly, her doctorate from the International College of Spiritual and Psychic Services is not an accredited university degree, per their website. Wikipedia isn't a place to pass value judgements, but even after having been edited down, the article itself serves little to no function other than as a tool for self-promotion. I honestly think it violates WP:FRINGETHEORY, too. I really do not agree with anyone who is saying she is a qualified authority in her field. For more information on my editing history and inability to find proper sourcing for the article's claims, see the article's Talk page.Imaginestigers (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2020 (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.