Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Kaptchuk

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The result was keep: withdrawn by nominator. DS (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Kaptchuk[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. Has a few seemingly-independent google hits, but I'm not sure it's enough to satisfy WP:GNG as it appears to largely be self-promotion Kuguar03 (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. one reliable, third party source, two reliable, third-party source. Ironholds (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG criteria. Cind.amuse 09:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you possibly elaborate slightly? As we've discussed before, it's not constructive to follow me around and contradict everything I say in a blatantly mean-spirited way. You need to actually provide evidence to back up your assertions. Kuguar03 (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Since you are a relatively new editor, I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. I highly recommend that you read, review, and come to an understanding of the policies and guidelines pertaining to discussing deletion and assuming good faith. No one is against you here. Cind.amuse 10:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you're not acting in bad faith then you really are quite obtuse. For the record, your comments here are an example of WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Not a useful contribution at all. Kuguar03 (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per above Egg Centric (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like a keep - I was concerned at first about the two sources both being to PBS, but there's also a usable one from the LA Times as well. Tarc (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Snowball seems likely at this point. I don't feel the available sources constitute significant coverage, but the consensus seems to be otherwise. Please withdraw my nomination. Kuguar03 (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It appears this article was PRODed back in 2008 and it was agreed that it didn't immediately fail notability. By way of a more verbose answer Kaptchuk seems to easily pass the "professor test" with ease. Specifically, Wikipedia:Academic#Criteria #1 says The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. This scientist, as a researcher in alternative medicine and placebo effect, is widely quoted by the independent media, such as:
  1. Placebos can work even when you know they're fakes -New Scientist
  2. Placebos work, even when patients are in the know, study finds -New Scientist
  3. Placebos Help Patients Even Without Faking It, Scientists Say -Business Week
  4. Placebo Effect Works Without the Bluff -Discovery News
  5. The Growing Power Of The Sugar Pill -National Public Radio
  6. Researchers lift the lid on placebos -Life Scientist News
  7. All placebos not created alike -Biology News
  8. Placebos Work Even if You Know They're Fake: But How? Time
  9. Perceptions: Positive Spin Adds to a Placebo’s Impact -New York Times
  10. All Placebos Not Created Alike -Science Daily
  11. Acupuncture activates the brain Nature News
  12. Survey: U.S. Doctors Regularly Prescribe Placebos National Public Radio
  13. Placebos Are Getting More Effective. Drugmakers Are Desperate to Know Why -Wired Magazine
  14. Ah, for a Cool Sip Of Liquid Yoga -New York Times
  15. Placebos help, even when patients know about them -MSNBC

This only represents about 5 minutes of searching Google News and every single article quotes Kaptchuk and his research. This doesn't include

  1. Frontiers Profile -Scientific American/PBS and
  2. Ancient Healing -PBS

I am hoping that the above list demonstrated that Kaptchuk clearly passes the notability threshold by criteria 1 of the "professor test". He might satisfy other criteria, but the professor test only requires passing a single requirement, not all. Basket of Puppies 00:53, 14 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ted_Kaptchuk&oldid=1086359929"