Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhonda Patrick (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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhonda Patrick[edit]

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

I spent a good amount of time adding new references in the chance that this would pass GNG, but there are very few sources. The subject does not meet any criteria for notability as a biography, not PROF or BASIC. Here's a breakdown of the sources in the article.

1 is from an open-access, integrative medicine journal, and the info is extracted from a promo-style bio at the bottom of the text.

2 is reliable, but cited her once and does not go into any depth on her biography

3 is her PhD dissertation, and does not establish notability.

4 is the best source here, but does not go into much detail on her. The article discusses the paper she published about vit. D from the integrative medicine journal.

5-7 are articles in a magazine that each cite her for one quote. The magazine is real and seems reliable, but it doesn't do very well for notability.

I would like to point out a comment by DGG on the previous AfD that was settled as "no consensus": [1] No meaningful content to establish notability has since been added. Delta13C (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel the Boston Globe article plus the fact that she's a regular guest (can't get the link formatting to work) on The Joe Rogan Experience (16 million monthly downloads per its article) meets WP:NACADEMIC point 7. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick has been a guest on the Joe Rogan show six times by my count. They are friends as stated in her appearances, so I'd be careful interpreting her appearances as independent of the source. The article in Boston Globe helps her notability, but this is one article covering a paper about vitamin D playing a role in serotonin production. IMO, this does not rise to the level of point 7 in WP:NACADEMIC. The bar should be much higher. Delta13C (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Google News Archive s fritzing out lately and I'm having a hard time linking to her search results. But she's mentioned in several sources I found through it. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. (I wish Google would stop breaking some of their most useful features). - Scarpy (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw all of those on previous my search, and I even did a deeper search in academic indices. I incorporated only the reliable sources, of which there are few and they do a poor job of establishing notability. The ones rejected in your list were either press releases or blogs. Delta13C (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should also add [11], [12]. Can you share the results of your search? - Scarpy (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Think Big article does not discuss her in depth, as it just links to a video. The article is completely about microbiota, and in the linked video Patrick interviews two scholars, but she is not an expert in microbiota. The second link is already cited in the article, which I added when I did my search. The results of the academic search were zero. I thought there may be academic commentaries about her research, but there were not. Thus, she still fails NACADEMIC and BASIC. Delta13C (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first AfD was in 2015, for which I basically argued that her junior career status and vitD work were TOOSOON. In checking again, she seems to have dropped out of academia and works full time on her "Found My Fitness" business and promoting herself and her business on YouTube, Twitter, etc. No recent research papers have been published, according to both her own website and GS. Conclusive fail of PROF. I agree that the Rogan show is not independent. Also, the article itself has some problematic aspects in that it repeats some of her medical claims but sources these to glossy publications, not medical journals. Given her gigantic YouTube presence, she seems to be trying to position herself as a pop-star medical host/commentator, e.g. like Dr. Phil or Dr. Oz. But, given that she has not (yet) been noted in the same way, it is still TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with User:GretLomborg, she has had substantial impact. - Scarpy (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scarpy, can you be more specific on what impact she made and by how much? Delta13C (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claims made against her status so far seem biased and speculative (e.g. she's aiming to be a "pop-star medical host/commentator" and "appears to have dropped out of academia.") What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. She's been discussed multiple sources and has notable impact as a nutrition educator outside of her other academic efforts. I really don't see why this is a discussion other than that the bias of other editors sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. - Scarpy (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She runs an enormous YouTube channel having ~90,000 subscribers containing a wide collection of videos where she gives lots of advice (much of it medically related, though she has no credentials nor MD) on everything from depression to Alzheimer's to Lyme disease, psychedelic therapies, cancer, cholesterol, longevity, etc., etc. etc. She solicits crowdfunding money for FoundMyFitness, promotes herself and her advice machine across all the major social media venues...Hmm...you're right. I don't know how anyone could conclude that she's trying to be a pop-star medical commentator. The trouble with Hitchens's razor is that it doesn't apply to propositions whose truth value is obvious upon observation. Agricola44 (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I think by "enormous Youtube channel" you mean that she has a lot of uploaded content rather than an "enormous" number of subscribers as 90,000 strikes me as being too low for her to be considered a notable YouTube star. jps (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, precisely. Sorry if that was not expressed clearly. The point I tried to make is that her MO of peddling advice on a wide variety of medical issues directly to the general public (here via YouTube) is eminently consistent with one who wants to be, what I referred to above, a "pop-star medical commentator". I agree again that 90K is not very high. YouTube commentators like Josh Axe have much higher subscriber bases, but no WP art. For Rhonda Patrick, it's TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

She has not been discussed in depth by any source, but only has trivial mentions in a few sources. IMO, there is not even enough known about her to know what is not to like. Delta13C (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Not finding a lot about her (and most of the sources seem to be Outside magazine). Not a lot of published work. But there is a small amount here. She seems to be notable, to a very few people. Thus a weak delete, she maybe more notable them I am picking up, but I am just not picking it up.Slatersteven (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One well cited book and paper. Not enough for WP:Prof. Other sources are trivial mentions. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- WP:PROF not satisfied and unlikely to be in the future. WP:CELEBRITY not there yet either. jps (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No in-depth coverage. Fails WP:PROF, WP:CELEBRITY, and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per reasons stated above. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete This person is marginally notable. I respect what she is trying to do in forging a career outside of academia where her PhD is useful, but the article as it was created was promotional from the get-go, and is only getting worse in that regard. We cannot be a vehicle for promotion. I'll also add that in addition to the promotionalism here, she appears to be promoting more and more FRINGEy stuff, and that is only going to make it harder for us to keep this article NPOV, as there will be less and less reliable sourcing even addressing what she is doing. Time to delete this. Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hate to jump on the pack, but yeah, not notable, no automatic criteria here. Time to axe this one. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 13:24, 16 July 2017 (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.