Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Kent

: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. Secret account 22:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

=[[Christine Kent]]=

:{{la|Christine Kent}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christine_Kent Stats])

:({{Find sources|Christine Kent}})

This article reads as a coatrack - an article about Whole Woman Posture disguised as a biography. (Whole Woman Posture was speedied as unambiguously promotional.) I couldn't find the kind of in-depth coverage of Kent that would be required to demonstrate that she meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and the only sources provided that mention her are self-published; the other sources are for some of the medical information in the article. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete for essentially the same reasons as the nominator; this page is a thinly-veiled advertisement for WWP, and sources about this Christine Kent appear quite hard to come across, going by the above Google links. CtP (t • c) 16:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete as a pretty poor BLP article, but maybe Kent is one of the very few people who wants her personal medical history detailed on Wikipedia! She attracts interest on specialist forums and personal websites, but I can't find any reliable coverage about her or her book online. At least I know now what a 'coatrack' is on Wikipedia! Sionk (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply

I've tried to take in your concerns re citing sources/verifiablility and personal health history. I have edited and added citations which I believe address your concerns. She is notable because she has done original research in an area which affects millions of women world wide and offers an alternative to traditional therapies that have a high failure rate (e.g. mesh). User:Fabprint 23 February 3013 —Preceding undated comment added 07:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC) — Fabprint (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

:*The problem is that most of the references aren't about Kent herself, but the health conditions she researches. CtP (t • c) 14:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete fails applicable notability guidelines, and above coatrack concerns still apply. Lack of suitable refs about the article's subject. -- Scray (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable promoter of an alternative medical regimen that even the article admits is "not yet widely accepted by the medical community". That's a bit of an understatement. I found zero coverage about her and her treatment at Google News, and absolutely nothing at Google Scholar or PubMed; apparently she has never published anything in any peer-reviewed journal. --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

: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.