Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana Parish

Dana Parish

[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)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

I just reverted an edit that had a lot of unsourced puffery about singer/songwriter Dana Parish. This caused me to review the article and edit history. The article is filled with dubious puffery. Also, the article is sourced mostly from Parish herself or from her own PR-associates, with the exception of an NY Post article.

There is no evidence of "significant coverage" required for notability. It's possible that many of the edits (along with edits of Parish's husband Andrew Hollander) are by someone close to the subject. The talk page warns about 2015 concerns about conflicts of interest, and the creator of this article also edited Hollander's page.

Parish has no scientific credentials, but she co-authored a 2021 book attempting to legitimize fringe beliefs and conspiracy theories about infectious diseases like Lyme disease, bartonella, and COVID. But unlike conspiracy theorists like Judy Mikovits, her beliefs claiming that autoimmune diseases and many other conditions are related to chronic Lyme disease never received "significant coverage" from reliable sources for notability. Accordingly, I think it is a good idea to delete this article. ScienceFlyer (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Magic4950: The recommendation to delete this page is clearly a personal attack and has no merit. Dana Parish is an author signed to Harper Collins and a songwriter signed to Sony Music. There are more than enough references on her page to support her legitimacy. It should be noted that the same person suggesting deletion is trying to delete her husband's Wikipedia page as well (also with no legitimate reason since his page is also well referenced and he has worked on many high profile projects with acclaimed recording artists and filmmakers), all the more evidence that these are personal attacks and harassment. magic4950 (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC) — Magic4950 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The recommendation to delete is based on lack of notability and reliable sources to support an article. I don't think we can say Parish's book is notable simply because it was published by a big publisher, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (now called HarperCollins). On the contrary, given the marketing force typically available to a large publisher, it's notable that this book has received little attention outside of WP:FRINGE circles. Given the fringe chronic Lyme disease and herbalism topics mentioned in the (paid-for?) Kirkus Review, discussion of this book should be in accordance with WP:NFRINGE.

And while Parish may have been employed in the music industry for a number of years and worked for some well-known artists, there is no evidence of widespread notability in accordance with Wikipedia:MUSICBIO. Billboard has a page showing a single credit: one of Parish's songs briefly reached #23 on its chart, but there isn't good evidence that this song or album was notable. I haven't found evidence, aside from her own PR firm, to support claims about being "one of the highest-charting independent artists. Parish bested herself, and broke into the Top 10, with the second single".

The nomination of both this article and the article for Andrew Hollander for deletion was prompted by noticing highly dubious edits made over a period of years by single purpose accounts like yourself Magic4950 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and by a shared editor already identified as potentially having a conflict of interest. Though nominated on the same day, I urge other editors to consider each article and nomination for deletion on its own merits. ScienceFlyer (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi, the Kirkus Reviews Indie Reviews (a separate, paid program within Kirkus Reviews) are clearly marked, e.g. example "Review Program: Kirkus Indie". The review I linked in this discussion is not an Indie review. Beccaynr (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have now recommended deletion of the page for Parish's husband Andrew Hollander. ScienceFlyer (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Women, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This reasoning feels like personal bias against this musical artist and author. What in the article is untrue? What specifically is incorrect? More proof than malicious personal attacks are needed to support the deletion of this article. DubiousPuffery (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC) — DubiousPuffery (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Just because an article is correct doesn't mean the subject is WP:NOTABLE. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the article is untrue. We need you to prove notability with reliable sources, as explained above. Please refrain from the accusations of personal attacks; we delete several hundred articles a month because they don't meed notability standards here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is content in the article that is not verified, including several career-related claims. Beccaynr (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see below links that illustrate Dana Parish's credentials as both a songwriter and expert in Lyme Disease and other vector borne diseases. There is clearly significant coverage of her work, including by other respected public voices in science, that warrants her page on Wikipedia.

https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/celine-dion-shows-edge-and-tries-out-new-characters-on-loved-me-5770656/

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/opinion/long-covid-lyme-disease.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/06/22/intersection-coronavirus-lyme-disease-creates-summer-worry-column/3221450001/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ticks-california-beaches-lyme-disease/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marybethpfeiffer/2020/03/13/lessons-from-lyme-disease-six-reasons-the-cdcs-covid-19-failure-was-predictable/?sh=78e6cc4f8e6b

https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/covid-concerned-colleges-spring-start-dates-remote

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2013/11/02/celine-dion-loved-me-back-to-life-interview/3189581/ magic4950 (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a 2020 book review from Kirkus Reviews and a 2008 CBS News article that follows her appearance on The Early Show and includes some biographical information and career highlights. The WP:NYPOST is not helpful for supporting notability, but per WP:MUSICBIO, the Billboard charting may help support this article (I have not been able to verify all of the chart-related claims in the article). Beccaynr (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We'd probably need another book review for AUTHOR, having a charting single is notable, but we don't have enough of each for the article to be kept. Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We need more than another review for WP:AUTHOR, e.g. per #3 The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews... (emphasis added, because this guideline requires more than multiple reviews for one work). Based on available sources, this article appears suitable for deletion per the second prong of WP:N, because Wikipedia is not WP:PROMO. Beccaynr (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Not quite enough significant independant coverage (such as reviews) to meet either WP:NAUTHOR or WP:COMPOSER, and not really convinced is enough to meet WP:SINGER. There is some coverage, hence only a weak !vote. Looking at WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS, the Billboard charting is in the "Adult Contemporary" category, which is airplay only in the US, and I'm not convinced is overly significant. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please, keep content, don't delete wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio Coscolín (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC) — Sergio Coscolín (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Simply asking to keep isn't really a valid argument as per WP:PLEASEDONT. You need to say what policy/guideline-based reasoning there is for keeping. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]