Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Hauser

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. — Cirt (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Hauser[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO notability; specifically, no non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. The source cited in the opening sentence noting what he is supposedly known for only mentions him briefly in passing. See also COI entry. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that he is known in the field of Prolotherapy, which is part of Wikipedia's alternative medicine project. The fact that this project exists shows that even Wikipedia knows that most traditional media doesn't cover alternative medicine very well. The alternative medicine project can not succeed if doctors like Ross Hauser are not allowed to have pages on Wikipedia. It is impossible to say that he is not a huge part of making Prolotherapy as well known as it is today, largely through his web presense and the Journal of Prolotherapy he started.Savethelastbook (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the COI interest, I'm happy to have anyone look over the article and tell me if it is not balanced.Savethelastbook (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article would need more mentionable references, aside from the St. Petersburg and Chicago Reader sources that focus mainly on his career. If the article wants to stay, it would need to be improved. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it would need to be improved. The only thing I am saying is that it is very hard to find reliable sources for alternative medicine because mainstream media does not cover it and the media that does cover it is largely a part of the community it came from, because no one else will tell the stories. When Wikipedia deletes articles like this, it contributes to the problem, despite projects like "The Alternative Medicine Project" that claim to want to do the opposite.Savethelastbook (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources can not be found (and believe me, I've looked) would it be possible to merge the article to Prolotherapyis the same way that it was with George S. Hackett. I'm not sure if merge is the right word (I'm pretty new to Wikipedia)but what I mean is that when you search Ross Hauser you would be redirected to the Prolotherapy page. I'm not sure how to do this, or whether it goes against the Wikipedia rules.Savethelastbook (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not covered by reliable sources. If a subject doesn't have sufficient reliable sources then we can't have an article about it. This is especially important when an article is associated with some form of fringe claim. Similarly, it is important when dealing with BLPs. These are both areas where we need to if anything be more careful about notability and sourcing. If Savethelast wants to change police he can go to WP:N and argue that there should be an exception for alt med. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---Sorry, I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia. Can you explain to me how to do that?Savethelastbook (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WT:N would be the first place to start. Bluntly speaking, the chance of getting a policy change on this at this time is extremely small. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or redirect to Prolotherapy; reads like an advert for somebody offering fringe therapies (it gets slightly WP:COATRACK at times too). Severe shortage of independent sources. Sources like this don't even mention Hauser, and if we were using them to support any kind of medical claim they'd fall a long way short of WP:MEDRS. bobrayner (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2011 (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.