Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David R. Hawkins (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 09:58, 6 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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. The votecount here is very close, with both sides giving plausible arguments. However, the "delete" side has the edge here, for the following reasons: 1) Several "keep" opinions are based on his awards, but there is no indication that they are significant or well-known. In addition, several of the claims to awards are not supported by reliable sources. 2) As for his bestselling book, nothing in WP:AUTHOR talks about popularity of books sales as a criterion for the author's notability. 3) Much of the coverage about him or his books is in unreliable sources such as self-published sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Hawkins

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
David R. Hawkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August 25. Procedural nomination, I am neutral. T. Canens (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 18:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 18:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 18:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. My opinion from the first nomination has not changed. Based on my searching, the subject fails all three of the possible categories for inclusion here: BIO, AUTHOR or ACADEMIC. Fails WP:BIO; Google News Archive does not find any significant coverage by reliable sources (the only Reliable Souce article I found was a Boston Globe article about the subject's marital problems; I am not arguing this makes him notable, but rather pointing out that the only coverage found is irrelevant to his claims of notabiliy). Fails WP:AUTHOR; his books are mostly self-published (with the exception of one long-ago book co-authored by Linus Pauling and published by Freeman) and are not reviewed by any Reliable Sources. Fails WP:ACADEMIC; nothing found at Google Scholar. BTW please check out the article's log; this article has been deleted numerous times; after the latest deletion the closing administrator found it necessary to salt the title due to repeated recreations. --MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW in his dust jacket biography he calls himself "Sir" David R. Hawkins; what's the "Sir" about? --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to his biography on amazon "In 1995, in a ceremony officiated by the H.H. Prince Valdemar of Schaumburg-Lippe at the San Anselmo Theological Seminary, he became a knight of the Sovereign Order of the Hospitaliers of St. John of Jerusalem (founded in 1077) in recognition of his contributions to humanity.". This claim appears to be as much a fabrication as his "research". The principality of Schaumburg-Lippe had never had a prince by that name and in 1995, the title was held by Friedrich Wolrad, Philipp-Ernst, Prince of Schaumburg-Lippe. The only Prince Valdemar I can find was of Denmark, who died in 1939, and neither of them had anything to do with any version of the Knights Hospitaller.Grandmartin11 (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I also can't imagine the San Anselmo Theological Seminary (that's not even its correct name - it's the San Francisco Theological Seminary, which is located in San Anselmo) having anything to do with such a ceremony - or with him. BS detector clanging loudly. Delete and salt. --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was covered in one of the previous discussions. It's a phoney honour which was available at the time to purchase by responding to a magazine ad. Formerip (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Prince Waldemar of Schaumburg-Lippe does exist. Not that I can see any acceptable evidence that he is a Hospitaller, whether of a legitimate or a phony one, let alone any relationship whatever between him and David Hawkins. PWilkinson (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as entirely valid. When people have no knowledge of spirituality, they condemn that that they don't understand. The writers of this unfortunate recommendation for deletion, while no doubt sincere in their misunderstanding, simply fail to appreciate the value of Dr. Hawkins work. It's regrettable that despite Dr. Hawkins commitment to Truth (one of his books is entitled "Truth vs Falsehood"), some continue to condemn his work as false. Yet Dr. Hawkins's book contains the admonition "Enslavement by illusion is comfortable; it is the liberation by Truth that people fear." I trust that the writers of this page recognize the validity of this statement! Yes, Dr Hawkins is definitely a spiritual writer, but why would that disqualify him for inclusion? CrisBCT (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's regrettable that despite Dr. Hawkins commitment to Truth (one of his books is entitled "Truth vs Falsehood"), some continue to condemn his work as false. - There is a philosophical issue at stake here. If Hawkins was committed to falsehood, then he would also (falsely) claim that he was committed to truth. Thus we cannot take his word for it. JoshuSasori (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why is my time being wasted with this re-list? There do not seem to be any reliable sources independent of the subject which discuss him in any detail, aside from this one. Formerip (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I closed the last Afd, and followed the DRV to some extent. During the DRV I looked through the sources and did some searching myself, and I'm not convinced that he meets WP:AUTHOR. I'm also troubled by the lack of 3rd party reliable sources covering him. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing in the article changed since the first nomination to address my concerns. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have just notified everyone (I think!) who commented in either the first AfD or the review unless the person had already placed a comment in this discussion. LadyofShalott 16:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- with no further objections if deleted: Though his book Power vs. Force has been considered a best-seller in several languages, and he has been interviewed in various national mainstream capacities, it is overwhelmingly clear that this author has other issues which are in contention by Wikipedia/Wikipedians, who feel that the article does not meet the purposes here, however it is deemed fit. The author himself doesn't care to be listed with this website. I personally believe the author should be listed here for those seeking unbiased information, either for or against this authors work, but there is no point further arguing the matter; people can find it elsewhere if they so choose. Having previously been the primary proponent for recreating and continuing to make the article available, the most recent English Wikipedia body 'consensus' has been to delete and you have no further objection or refute from this editor if it is deleted. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy keep As I clearly stated, he is notable and received awards. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What awards? The article makes no mention of them, and I didn't see any sources showing any awards. They would need to be "well-known and significant awards" in order to establish notability for the subject. - SudoGhost 17:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For example (from the German article) Tae Ryoung Sun Kak Tosa and his books topped the bestseller lists. One book was translated in 15 languages, which is a big deal. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huxley Award, Physicians Recognition Award of the American Medical Association, Orthomolecular Medicine Hall of Fame, Distinguished Life Fellows honor of the American Psychiatric Association, etc. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noticed that the German article has no sources? Formerip (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In German Wikipedia in-line citations are not a requirement. You can google it after all. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing this isn't the German Wikipedia then. The awards you listed are not "well known and significant awards", especially if there isn't even a reliable source verifying any of them. - SudoGhost 17:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Huxley and Orthomolecular medicine awards are from pseudoscientific fringe groups; they are not notable nor do they indicate anything about notability. The other awards are merely procedural following specific criteria by the different groups respectively and are expected from any life long Psychiatrist/Physician. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those unaware of the previous AfD discussion and subsequent DRV you may wish to refer to the closed Deletion Review Discussion and click 'show' for other information discussed on this author. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion.  This essay states, "While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why."  Unscintillating (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In regards to Mother Teresa, Lee Iacocca, Sam Walton, and Wayne Dyer, they may have had good things to say about Hawkin's book Power vs. Force but does not contribute to any notability on Hawkins part. Further, no one has been able to produce any wp:independent sources to back up any of their quotes anyway.
  2. In regards to Oprah's interview with Hawkins, no one has been able to produce a wp:reliable wp:independent source that summarizes the interview, nor a published record of the interview (within the limits of WP:THIRDPARTY). A small blurb regarding Hawkin's book Power vs. Force is mentioned at Oprah's interview with Hawkins, which serves only to validate the book written by Hawkins but does not serve to make him notable. When running a search at Oprah's website, Oprah's search engine for David Hawkins, the only commentary that comes up is the same "blurb" about his book.
  3. In regards to an alleged interview with Barbara Walters, this was misinterpreted from a website that violates WP:NWEB at Barbara Walters: Age confusion. There is no interview with Barbara Walters and David R Hawkins listed on this page nor any mention of it at Global Oneness Encyclopedia: David R Hawkins. Further, no one has been able to produce a wp:reliable source concerning an alleged interview with Barbara Walters. The only source from which this stems, that I could find, came from The Pirate Bay (Warning! This site is not condoned by me or Wikipedia. Clicking this link may result in viruses).
  4. In regards to (par. "Mainstream scientists...), this content could be moved to the Applied kinesiology page and reworded to wp:scope, perhaps under the subsection Applied kinesiology#Criticism.
  5. In regards to the German related article, David R Hawkins (German version), their standards of providing reliable sources may be different from the wiki English policies. At present, no sources are provided at that page, and it has been argued that sources are not even required to be listed. From what I gather, the German wiki does have Wikipedia:Richtlinien (policies) at Wikipedia:Keine Theoriefindung#Theoriedarstellung (Wikipedia: No original research#Representation theory), where it says: "Alle Artikel in der Wikipedia sollen auf Informationen aus bereits veröffentlichten und möglichst verlässlichen Informationsquellen beruhen. (All articles in Wikipedia should be based on information already published and most reliable sources of information.)" Also, their definition of Original research under Wikipedia:Keine Theoriefindung#Was ist Theoriefindung?, is "Was ist Theoriefindung? Das betrifft insbesondere unveröffentlichte Theorien... (What is original research? This particularly applies to unpublished theories...)" It also states in the following paragraph, "Publikationen im Selbst- oder Zuschussverlag und private Websites sind in aller Regel ungeeignet, wenn sie keine entsprechende Rezeption in der Fachwelt in Form von wissenschaftlichen Zitationen gefunden haben. (Publications in self- or subsidy publishing and private websites are generally inappropriate when no corresponding reception in the art in the form of scientific citations found.)" Therefore, I continue to argue that the German version page is in just as much violation as the English version.
  6. In conclusion, biographies, especially for living persons should be scrutinized more so than religious or scientific articles. This article fails WP:NOTABLE, fails WP:RELIABLE, is WP:UNSOURCED, fails WP:SELFPUB, fails WP:WELLKNOWN, fails WP:NPF, fails WP:BLPTALK, and fails WP:BLPSOURCES. (See Talk:David R. Hawkins#WP:SELFPUBLISH for further reasons behind these failures.)
Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 18:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a point of order, the German article, de:David R. Hawkins, is very far from unsourced. It lacks inline citations but that's quite normal on de.wiki, where they're very strict about some things (e.g. no fair use images at all, flagged revisions implemented everywhere, vandals blocked on their first edit without warning) and lax by our standards with others. What matters on de.wiki is whether academic sources exist (whether or not they're cited), and Hawkins can have an article on de.wiki as the author of academic sources irrespective of whether he's mentioned in academic sources. Their notability rules are obviously very different from ours.

    I see all the alphabet soup supporting each side's position and I'm not really interested, recognising that this is a borderline case and we need to exercise judgment. Hawkins is a chap at the end of a long and fairly distinguished career as a serious psychologist, who also happens to be a mystic who's written some material of dubious credibility. Personally I think it's right that we have articles about mystics and pseudoscientists: as encyclopaedia ditors, we're essentially educators. Our role is to inform our readers. That does include informing readers about misconceptions and pseudoscience. We aren't Snopes, of course, but I do think this article is probably appropriate if only for that reason.—S Marshall T/C 18:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And that's why you have Applied kinesiology#Criticism to discuss the misconceptions and pseudoscience that Hawkins brings to the table, but is not worth his own page. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 18:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, I'm afraid. Does the fact that we've got that mean that we can't have this?—S Marshall T/C 14:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable author & pseudoscientist. WorldCat listing, showing wide holdings of his books: [1] The editing of the article and the comments at the earlier AfD and deletion review show a concerted effort to discard or deny all possibly relevant material. I personally have a very considerable prejudice against pseudoscientists and spiritual writers, and have read enough to be thoroughly disgusted by that entire approach. but that shouldn't affect my judgement here about who is notable in that field. I think with the given material we'd have accepted the article were he writing on any other subject. Deletion of this would amount to prejudice. Prejudice in our setting means the deliberate non-inclusion of material we think to be wrong--as we cannot openly say so, it is usually expressed by a hyper-critical attitude towards the sources. (I agree that some of he claims made for him, including the knighthood, are not significant, and need to be neutrally reported not implicitly endorsed. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey DGG, that's really interesting that you bring up www.worldcat.org: Hawkins, David R. 1927. Did you notice the Publication Timeline? From 1970 to 2020, the key indicates that there are No "Publications about David R Hawkins"! The graph only indicates "Publications by David R Hawkins". I find it humorous how you as an admin view notability by promoting wp:selfpub with no wp:independent sources to back up your support in all of the various page comments that you've made on Hawkins. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 19:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The wide holding argument isn't policy and guideline based, see WP:AUTHOR for the actual requirements. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, being an author of multiple books does not make someone notable. See WP:AUTHOR. Formerip (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might be, if these sources could be named. Formerip (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
when one considers the older version, one sees that the content is based on sources like [ holisticnetworker.com ] -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Columnists from periodicals

[edit]
  • Keep - (I was notified of this discussion due to my posting at the Hawkins DRV.)[2]) This used to be a give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile articles. Allowed some editors to have a David R. Hawkins Wikipedia article and they posted an endless stream of information cited to anything without regard to whether the source is a Wikipedia reliable source, without regard to whether the source is connected to David R. Hawkins, and without regard to presenting it in an encyclopedic manner. However, the hard work of other Wikipedians have overcome that and those non Wikipedia notability problems are not there now. I think S Marshall and DGG have good points. Also, Hawkins is at the end of a long and fairly distinguished career (born 1927) and there is strong bias against him/his work outside of Wikipedia and that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. In searching for information on Hawkins, there was some information (listed below)for David Hawkins and kinesiology. Those sources brought up his book Power vs. Force, which was a Globe and Mail listed number 1 best seller.[3] David Hawkins and Power vs. Force puts Hawkins in the news since April 2002. Independent reliable source coverage of that book likely includes some biographical material on David R. Hawkins. A lot of the reliable source coverage that I found are only book author appearance notices, but some include material that would be good for the article (e.g., [4]) Some information:
  • Elaine Voci (November 1, 2003). "On the night stand". T&D. 57 (11): 85. Retrieved August 26, 2012. Psychiatrist David Hawkins was knighted by Danish royalty for the work presented in Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior. He teaches readers that on a primal level, the human brain is a wondrous computer linked to a universal energy field and consciousness can be calibrated on a ladder of spiritual enlightenment. The book is for readers with diverse interests in such subjects as attractor patterns for businesses, kinesiology, and personal transformation.
  • Candice Hannigan (April 15, 2004). "Community Of Faith". Atlanta Journal and Constitution. p. 5. David Hawkins, author of "Power vs. Force," will present a workshop {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
  • Doug Guthrie and Kendra S (July 28, 2005). "MSU slips new fees onto tab: In addition to fall tuition hikes, students will pay hundreds of dollars in surprise costs". The Detroit News. p. A01. Retrieved August 26, 2012. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
Note: this item refers to a different David Hawkins.[5] --MelanieN (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barbara Routen (January 11, 2007). "Democratic Club Elects Its Officers And Directors". Tampa Tribune. p. 2. Retrieved August 26, 2012. Unity in Brandon presents a videotaped workshop by David R. Hawkins, author of "Power Vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior," from 7 to 9 p.m. Friday, Jan. 19 and 26 at Unity, 115 Margaret St., Suites D and E. Hawkins is a psychiatrist, researcher, lecturer and author who first embraced atheism, then suffered from an illness that did not respond to treatment and then lived a hermit's existence for seven years. Close to death in 1965, he had a spiritual awakening and began his recovery, research and writing. In 2003 he became affiliated with the Unity Church. In his book "Power Vs. Force," Linda Compton, spokeswoman for Unity in Brandon, said Hawkins "conclusively proves the ability of kinesiological testing to distinguish truth or falsehood in any statement. He goes on to demonstrate the application of his method in commerce, art, sport, etc. He explains its spiritual application as a path to enlightenment." {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
  • Louisa Deasey (May 25, 2008). "Good vibrations. Focusing on the upbeat and thinking positive will lift your mood and your spirits. By Louisa Deasey". The Daily Telegraph (Australia). p. 16. Retrieved August 26, 2012. In the seminal book on the subject, Power vs Force, by David Hawkins (Hay House), Hawkins discusses the beginnings of kinesiological testing by Dr John Diamond, and how simple methods tested on thousands of people have proven certain words, foods, objects and ideas have the capacity to weaken or strengthen our bodies just by being in our energy field. etc. {{cite news}}: |section= ignored (help)
  • Jeff Pierce (July 11, 2011). "Power and Force in Your Trading". The Business Insider. Retrieved August 26, 2012.
In view of what I found, what now is in the article and the state of the article due to the hard work of Wikipedians, and the above source material, I think the topic meets WP:GNG and there should be a stand alone biographical article on Hawkins. Wikipedia is the only place on the Internet where pseudoscientist can be presented in an encyclopedic matter and people should be able to find a place on the Internet to become educated about Hawkins. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your hard work digging up material. Unfortunately it isn't enough. The fact that he gives workshops does not add to his notability. Many of the quotes you cited are simply people regurgitating what Hawkins says about himself (even falling for the "knighthood" scam). I can't see the Australia Daily Telegraph item; it does sound like a Reliable Source mention or possibly even full review, but it isn't enough by itself. "The Business Insider" is not very impressive as a "reliable source". Finally, he may have had a "long and distinguished career" in some people's opinion, but per a search of Google Scholar, it wasn't enough to meet the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. Anyhow his mainstream career appears to be irrelevant to any fame he may have acquired. I tried really hard to find information about his academic career so I could add it to the article (where was he on staff? for how long? what was his title?) but I couldn't find a thing. He doesn't include any of that information in his resume, and his professional career doesn't seem to have left any mark on the world at all. --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources go towards establishing notability. You quoted the entire portion on Hawkins from Voci - that is hardly in-depth coverage, nor is it a book review. It is trivial, passing mention. The other refs are similarly not sufficient. GregJackP Boomer! 15:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These references make me despair. Workshop notices? Let alone two of them. Not even bothering to notice that one of them is to a David R Hawkins who is a Professor of Animal Sciences and not the subject of this article? Jeff Pierce is a blogger who runs Zentrading.ca. Elaine Voci is clearly just repeating what she's read and can't be used, esp. as she repeats the knighthood claim which is a BLP violation until it is reliably sourced. Maybe the Australia Daily Telegraph article is ok but I can't tell as I can't read it either. Can anyone? Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I couldn't read the Voci article either. Preview is blocked.   — Jasonasosa 16:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't locate the Australian Daily telegraph article, either through the link provided and navigating the archive, nor through a site specific search, nor through google news. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was one of the people that tidied up the article before it was nominated for AfD. The sourcing is inadequate for notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He does not have an actual knighthood, as formerip pointed out in the DRV, according to [6], any news report that claims he did has done little investigative work. His claimed awards: Huxley, Orthomolecular are fringe pseudoscience awards. The Psychiatry awards are standard achievements for any psychiatrist with a long career; see their requirements. The sourcing is rather lacking, this is the only reliable source we have for the article: [7]. Those pointed out by Uzma are unreliable (they repeat the false knighthood claim), one is a different person, one is a blog, one is a standard notification. These aren't good sources. He does not meet WP:AUTHOR either. His books are barely cited (WP:FRINGE: "One important barometer for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject. "); what impact has he had as an author? Basically David Hawkins is as notable as any other Psychiatrist of similar experience; not notable enough. The only difference is that he has written books on pseudoscience; from WP:FRINGE we look for the reliable mainstream sources: WP:FRINGE#Reliable sources not fringe sourcing. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete basically as per IRWolfie above. There is some reason, based on the Mother Teresa material and the Sri Lanka, I think?, award to believe that the subject might be discussed in media of the subcontinet a bit more than I can see on the various newsbanks available to me, but that is without evidence as yet. He has apparently written a single book which might have apparently, possibly, received enough attention for a separate article. But that would be an article on the book, not on its author. The evidence shows very little material discussing the author himself, or any of his other books, and on that basis, I have to say that, so far as I can see, the subject of this article, Hawkins himself, rather clearly and obviously fails to meet notability criteria. No opinion on the notability of the Power vs. Force book, however. John Carter (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  WP:N notability is not defined by the existence of an article on Wikipedia or the content of any such article, which is relevant because this article has been reduced from 80,000 bytes with 153 reflist entries.  Hawkins has a new book scheduled to release on 1 October 2012, ref.  The "About the Author" from that page states, "David R. Hawkins, MD, PhD, is an internationally renowned psychiatrist, consciousness researcher, spiritual lecturer and mystic. Author of more than eight volumes, including the bestseller Power vs. Force, Dr Hawkins's work has been translated into more than 17 languages..."  Here is a book reviewed by Reed Business Information that has ten pages that discuss Hawkins:
The German Wikipedia has a number of references, and the references have references, and whether or not the references are wp:reliable we have plenty of evidence that the topic has attracted attention from the world at large, and a long history to match.  Especially tricky is the indication that Wikipedia is itself a part of the history of this topic.  Within Wikipedia, the vigor with which this topic has been assailed speaks to a denial that this topic is understood to be "worthy of notice".  As per the lede of WP:N, WP:N requires only that the topic be "worthy of notice", and the extensive library holdings alone pass this test.  This said, given the current state of the article, I am ok with routing it to the incubator.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unscintillating, I am sure you realize that the publicity blurb for a forthcoming book does not in any way constitute an Independent Reliable Source about the author. And the link you posted leads to a book (published by the same publisher which has published some of Hawkins' work), but there is no way to tell what is said in that book. "Wikipedia is itself a part of the history of this topic"- what does that mean? --MelanieN (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about a publicity blurb, and if your point is to question Amazon about the career of Hawkins that I quoted, which point do you think was puffed?  Here is the list to choose from:
  • MD
  • PhD
  • internationally renowned
  • psychiatrist
  • consciousness researcher
  • spiritual lecturer
  • mystic
  • Author of more than eight volumes
  • including the bestseller Power vs. Force
  • Dr Hawkins's work has been translated into more than 17 languages
As for the book link, that book has most of the ten pages available for preview.  To verify, I clicked on the link, typed "Hawkins" in the search box, enabled Javascript, and the next click produced a result of ten pages.  So your statement that "there is no way to tell what is said in that book" seems instead to be a problem between you and Google.  As for the statement about Wikipedia being a part of the history of this topic, I've already forgotten exactly what I saw, and I'll strike the comment if you want, but in looking through the references on the German Wikipedia, there is one site with a copy of a letter from Veritas Publishing, and another site reports that Hawkins or his attorneys got a few web pages taken down.  There is another site that attends to the fact that the article on Wikipedia disappeared at one point.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb from Amazon is not independent research by Amazon. That's not how it works. Such blurbs are supplied by the publisher. Everything in that list is from the publisher, thus directly or indirectly from Hawkins himself. Such "information" is commonly a copy-and-paste from the book jacket. It adds nothing to what is already known about Hawkins, and it certainly contributes nothing to his notability. It is intended to sell books. --MelanieN (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:MelanieN is right. The bio on Hawkins at Amazon is taken directly from Hawkins' website at: About David R Hawkins. This matter is like a dog chasing its tail.   — Jasonasosa 14:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To totally put to rest the notion that Amazon might be a reliable source: the elaborate and obviously phony description of his "knighthood", cited above, comes from his biography at Amazon.[8] --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No MelanieN, you are mistaken. The bio on Amazon, including the knighthood, directly comes from Hawkins own website, About David R Hawkins.   — Jasonasosa 15:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that nothing found at Amazon can be regarded as an independent or reliable source. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I just had to make that slight correction because it is important to note where the original source comes from. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 15:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You're right that the author of the other book, Wayne Dyer, falls all over himself praising Hawkins. (I also note that his book is published by Hay House, which also publishes some of Hawkins' work.) Still, I'll give you this as a book which gives coverage to Hawkins. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct MelanieN (talk · contribs), Dyer editorializes with "In this remarkable book" (p.74), "compelling statistics" (p.113), "fascinating observations" (p.231), "offers us this wisdom" (p.233), "in his illuminating book" (p.250). How many times does Dyer have to tell his audience how awesome Hawkin's book is? Don't you think its a little over the top, like he's trying to really prove something because maybe... nobody knows Hawkins? To my knowledge, Hay House is only published one book of Hawkins "Power vrs. Force" which is the book that Dyer talks up so much about. Maybe Dyer's was paid by Hay House to talk it up so that they could get more sales off of Hawkins book! How can we at wikipedia promote this crap?   — Jasonasosa 15:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The references in the article seem to be sufficient in order to establish the notability of the subject.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some previous voters thoroughly analyzed these references and found them insufficient for the reasons explained. Please list the references which you think are good, so that we may specifically discuss them and possibly accept your position. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Several people have asked for more information about the "prizes" or "honors" claimed for this subject. One of his claimed honors is the "Physician Recognition Award" from the American Medical Association (cited above by Great Orange Pumpkin and others to show he has recieved "awards"). In fact, this "award" means next to nothing, and anyone who cites it is pathetically inflating their resume. Basically, the "Physician Recognition Award" is a piece of paper that you get from the AMA if you self-report to them that you have done a certain number of hours of Continuing Medical Education. Since all physicians do CME to meet state licensing requirements, the only thing that distinguishes a recipient of the "Physician Recognition Award" is that they bothered to fill out the paperwork and send it in to the AMA. --MelanieN (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite some heroic attempts to improve the article it still lacks a single source that has him as the primary topic from a reliable source (or any source?). As far as I can tell the current references given only verify that Hawkins is what he is claimed to be in little more than passing reference. Also the Louise Deasey source in further reading doesn't appear to exist, and the third is a blog post http://www.zentrader.ca/blog/?p=7749 that I would remove from any other article as blog spam. (removed) The only real source appears to be http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter58.html which I can't claim to be reliable or neutral - if taken as accurate and at value the article would read "Dawkins is a quack/friendly fruitcase", and not David R. Hawkins is an American author on applied kinesiology. - Can't simply take sources as proof of notability and then ignore what they say...Oranjblud (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on is this the same D. Hawkins with a stream of publications about Ascorbic acid mostly in association with Linus Pauling (ie the vitamins as a cure for diseases stuff) ?? If so his earlier work may well be far more notable than the 'crank stuff'.Oranjblud (talk) 11:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find any about ascorbic acid. Linus Pauling appears as co-author on one of Hawkins' books. It was published in 1973 and hasn't gotten much citation (89 at Google Scholar). When mentioned by others, it is usually credited to Pauling. Writing a book with a notable co-author does not make one notable. (With typical hyperbole, Hawkins' biography at Amazon claims that this book, Orthomolecular Psychiatry, was "groundbreaking" and "pioneering" and "initiated a new field within psychiatry". In contrast, the Wikipedia article on the subject doesn't even mention Hawkins, and says the field was founded 20 years earlier by Abraham Hoffer. Pauling is credited with coining the term "orthomolecular" five years before their book was published. More evidence that we need to stop providing a Wikipedia forum for this guy's exaggerated claims.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a redirect is left, I suggest that it be protected and the edit history deleted. This article has been recreated so many times, I think it would be unwise to leave an editable page here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but a redirect of this topic to applied kinesiology is an insult to reason.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Unscintillating (talk · contribs). That would not be appropriate to redirect to that page because that could be misinterpreted as Hawkins being an alternate source for applied kinesiology. It just doesn't even make sense to do that. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 07:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure a redirect would be an "insult to reason," but I agree that, given the subject co-wrote at least one apparently reasonable article published in a reputable journal before becoming tied to applied kinesiology, it would probably be inappropriate because somewhat misleading, as it would give the impression that all he wrote about is applied kinesiology. As I said earlier, though, if the Power vs. Force book can be established to meet notability, as I think it might be able to, then a redirect from this page to an article on that book, which would presumably have a section on its author, wouldn't be out of line. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If such a page does get written and passes Wikipedia's criteria (and I agree it might), a redirect page could be created then. If the title has been salted, it is easy enough to ask for an unsalt. While he may have done other things in his career, this appears to be the only thing that gives him any claim at all to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep a google books search shows that he has critics and supporters. Hence, if people are talking about him and he's published then people might be searching places like wikipedia for information about him. SalHamton (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be really useful to provide links - what you are describing seems to be a much higher level of sourcing than has previously been put forward. Formerip (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It would be particularly helpful if there were some indication as to which of the books at Google books have a significant enough discussion of him to basically meet the notability threshold, and which of them are, unfortunately, self-published books by others or from other sources which are at best dubious to establish notability. Unfortunately, I know of a number of, well, crank/crackpot self-published books out there which give significant discussion to any number of really, um, interesting theories that one often thinks were written by people who live in rooms with very soft walls. I do not know whether self-published sources about fringe-of-the-fringe theories are sufficient to establish notability, but I suppose they might be. In any event, it would be useful to know which books one sees at Google books which one thinks enough to establish notability, and, possibly, who published them. John Carter (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Seems many contributors to this article either love Hawkins or hate him. That is beside the point. I have taken the time to read enough of his books to know that they've sold enough copies, and make at least as much sense, as the work of any other "new thought" philosopher with a firmly established presence on Wikipedia. With respect to those that suggest deletion, I recommend digging a bit deeper for the facts about the man, then decide whether you still think a David Hawkins entry should be "censored" from Wikipedia. The joke is, I doubt Hawkins himself considers it relevant whether he's listed here or not. Those who have found inspiration from his writings, however, might want this listing Kept. My sympathies lie with them, based on the facts I have just mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldblank (talk • contribs) 00:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What reason do you have to keep the article though, is it "sold enough copies"? That doesn't give any notability to the article about the person, it wouldn't even give notability to the books themselves. I think two AfDs worth of discussion should have uncovered at least some "facts about the man" that would warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Being interesting or inspiring is not a reason to be included in an encyclopedia, everyone is interesting to someone. - SudoGhost 00:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, I personally question the apparent judgment that many of those who have commented either "love him or hate him." While I do believe that there is at least one editor who seems to be rather driven by his own opinions on this matter, I can speak for myself, and I think several others, that I personally don't care about him one way or another. The fact that some editors are inspired by his books is useful, but individual editors generally are not considered sources sufficient to establish notability. So far as I have seen myself, on the various periodical databanks available to me, his notability is not clearly established. Simply being an inspiration to some individuals, including editors, is not sufficient - significant coverage in independent reliable sources is. And I also want to go on record as being happy to see Geraldblank above has come back to wikipedia after two years of inactivity, and very much look forward to seeing him significantly add to his total of 11 edits to date. John Carter (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Further, nowhere in any of at least 6 different wiki pages (including talkpages) worth of debates has anyone ever indicated that they "love" Hawkins, nor "hate" him. No one has ever alluded to terms of endearment or disgust. The dispute has been very strict and clear... a huge barrier like line drawn down the center between being notable or not. This has come down to endorsing self published books versus reliable independent verification. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 23:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, the arguments have not been similar on both sides; they do not seem to be talking about the same thing. The people saying "keep" mostly argue that Hawkins is important or valuable, or they praise his ideas or his writings. The people saying "delete" mostly discuss the notability issue: what are the sources, are they reliable, are they independent, are they significant, and do they support the statements made? In other words, it seems to me that one side cites notability (as defined by Wikipedia) much more than the other does. --MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:N only has one requirement, that a topic be "worthy of notice"; which is elsewhere described as "attracts attention".  Your extra effort to prove that this topic does not attract attention seems to itself show the power of this topic to attract attention.  How should someone reading consensus in this discussion read your extra effort?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • That is the most twisted logic I have seen in a long time. The fact that I am going out of my way to say he is not notable, proves that he is notable??? Anyhow, you are dead wrong about the "one requirement" of WP:N. It does not require that a topic be "worthy of notice," which is a judgment call; it requires that a topic "have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time", which is an objective factual assessment. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • WP:N states, "Article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'."  Unscintillating (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It also says a lot more than that. However, even if that was the only thing WP:N said that wouldn't somehow make this article notable, because this "worthiness" has to be demonstrated through reliable sources, you can't just claim it's notable because John Doe thinks that it's interesting. WP:N also says that "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." Where are these sources? - SudoGhost 04:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The previous quote has taken text from WP:NRVE in a way that might leave readers thinking that WP:NRVE requires evidence of verifiable sources.  WP:V is the policy that requires verifiable sources.  WP:V has not only has a strong sourcing requirement, it is a policy.  And WP:V is a reason in WP:Deletion policy for deletion.  Back to WP:NRVE, here is the entire first sentence from WP:NRVE, "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability."  WP:N is rife with exceptions such as "The common theme..."  But one sentence that has no such qualification is, "Article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'."  Unscintillating (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Your interpretation of "worthy of notice" apparently differs from the majority of Wikipedia editors, and isn't in line with how notability is determined. Unless you can show with multiple third-party reliable sources exactly how this article is "worthy of notice" those are meaningless words, because everything is "worthy of notice" to someone. I found a rock outside my home, that doesn't mean it is notable enough for a Wikipedia article just because I found it "worthy of notice". Cherry-picking that single term and focusing on it doesn't somehow make this article notable, "worthiness" has to be shown, and there are multiple ways to do that on Wikipedia (WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO), and this article doesn't meet a single one of these ways. - SudoGhost 00:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                        • It is a multiple fallacy to assert a fallacy of the majority with a proof by assertion.  Interesting that a moment ago, a couple of delete editors were trying to imply that none of the keep editors were using policy/guideline based arguments, and now the previous post dismisses the plain English meaning of the lede of WP:N, which states, "Article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'."  This post would have us to believe that only the pre-defined paths of WP:GNG and the SNGs are used to determine "worthy of notice".  And that even if such were allowed, no evidence has been provided, and that even if evidence has been provided, it was not done with sources that could be cited on the article page.  Worldcat lists six of the 17 language translations claimed by Amazon for Power vs. Force; those being English, French, Spanish, Korean, Japanese, and Chinese.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Wikipedia works by consensus, so if you're suggesting that a consensus is a "fallacy of the majority" then you're on the wrong website. Cherry-picking a single term and "lawyering" the letter of the wording as opposed to the actual meaning and ignoring the entire rest of the guideline is not going to make this article notable. You've suggested that this article is "worthy of notice". There are a multitude of ways Wikipedia has to determine that, and this article does not meet a single one of those ways. Asserting that an article is "worthy of notice" without showing that worth through reliable sources does not make it notable, and basically boils down to a WP:ITSINTERESTING rationale. A book being sold in other languages just means the book is sold in other languages. That doesn't mean the book is notable in any of the languages, and it certainly doesn't somehow mean that the author of the book is notable. - SudoGhost 07:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                            • IMO, the previous post contains red herring, ad hominem, misdirection, proof by assertion, irrelevant truism, and moving the goalpost.  IMO, it conflates concepts; including majority and consensus, the lede of WP:N with the essay "ITSINTERESTING", and content-policy sourcing with reliable evidence.  The previous post does not change the evidence; that WP:N "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow"; the lede of WP:N, states, "Article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice' "; and that the topic is that of a medical doctor with years of medical-practice experience, who before his career as a mystic attracted attention with orthomolecular therapy, who with his work as a mystic has received increased world-wide attention with attendant controversy, one of more than eight authored books has been translated in six to 17 languages, and the world library system shows extensive holdings world-wide.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Yes, you've said this, repeating it doesn't make it any more valid than it was before. Cherry-picking a single wording and asserting that the article somehow meets this very specific wording does not make an article notable. "Worthy of notice" means absolutely nothing without third-party reliable sources showing that notability; your assertion of "worthy of notice" equates to WP:ITSINTERESTING and nothing more. If you think that any of these reasons you gave means he is "worthy of notice", then you'd be able to show this "notice" that reliable sources have given the subject. Your interpretation of notability is wildly out of sync with Wikipedia's, and this discussion involves Wikipedia's definition of notability, not your "overly broad to the point of being useless" definition of "worthy of notice". - SudoGhost 20:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Add argument from false premises to the previous list.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • I was hoping you would do more than continue to link pointless things that you somehow think are relevant; you aren't going to insult someone into making this article notable, and if that's all you're going to do then I think this discussion has run its course. Your definition of notability is wildly different than Wikipedia's definition and has no traction of any kind in this discussion, and it seems multiple editors have disagreed with your view of notability. Unless you can provide any evidence that this article is "worthy of notice" from reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject then this article does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. I have no doubt you'll continue to try to link logical fallacy articles as if they somehow explain everything (here's a hint: they don't. You're just linking things without context or explanation), but unless you can bring something new to the discussion, I think what's been said already sums up everything. - SudoGhost 23:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Unscintillating, All content of wikipedia, including claims of notability must be based on verifiable references. And this is said in the sentence just before the phrase you quote. And the requirement of verifiability trumps all other guidelines. I don't think your quoted phrase must repeat or rephrase the preceding one. WP:V goes everywhere without saying. 20:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staszek Lem (talk • contribs)
It is way past time to put this discussion out if its misery. It is devolving into an unproductive, repetitious argument. Unscintillating, are you really trying to claim that sources aren't necessary for notability - that it's only necessary for a subject to be "worthy of notice" in some undefined way? If that is your point (I'm not sure), that is an unsustainable argument. It is contradicted by (among other things) the "nutshell" summary of WP:N, which says "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention." In the case of this man, his "years of medical-practice experience" left no trace on the world at large that I could find. His "orthomolecular therapy" book gets very few cites at Google Scholar and no independent coverage that I could find, and his claim to have originated that field appears to be as phony as his claim to have a knighthood. His only possible claim to fame is his mystical writings, of which one book may qualify as notable enough for an article (I'd have to see the article to judge), but the possible notability of his book does not transfer to him. --MelanieN (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Melanie, the nutshell says, "We consider evidence from..." It does not say, "We only consider evidence from..."  WP:Inaccuracy#Examples of forms of evidence regarding potentially inaccurate material lists additional forms of evidence.  The list I gave above from Amazon is another example of evidence, which evidence remains unrefuted in this discussion.  The point that Amazon is not a wp:reliable source is not sourced to a wp:reliable source, so is argumentative.  Regarding your viewpoint that phony claims should weigh against notability, I think that the refutation of such claims are evidence of the topic attracting attention.  As for the suggestion that we could have an article on Power vs. Force and merge this topic to the book article, I think this suggestion has merit.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Amazon biography, it says right on the Amazon biography page "This biography was provided by the author or their representative." But your final sentence may suggest a way out of this endless discussion. if you agree with the suggestion that an article about the book might be more appropriate than an article about Hawkins, that could be the consensus we have been looking for here: Namely, delete this article, and wait for someone to create a page about Power vs. Force which could include some information about the author. --MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you see the self-referential contradiction in citing Amazon to argue that Amazon is not wp:reliable.  You've just presented evidence in a notability discussion that does not come from a wp:reliable source.  I expect that Amazon is big enough to have people to whom you can complain if you think that the author's material is falsified.  As for deleting the edit history, what is the point in hiding the man-months of work that the edit history represents, and leaving nothing in the encyclopedia from which to work?  Why should we hide the history that this article was once 80,000 bytes in length with 153 reflist entries?  In my keep !vote, I said that I was open to routing this article to the incubator.  How do you feel about incubate?  Unscintillating (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon says the information it is providing comes from the author or their representative. That makes it a primary source, a self-published source, a self-interested source. It means: this is not Amazon talking; this is the author talking. By adding this tagline, Amazon explicitly denies any responsibility for the accuracy of the information. Self-provided information like this can NOT be used to evaluate notability or significance, because it is not independent. Self-stated claims must be verified by independent reliable sources, and in the absence of such verification, they must be disregarded. Anybody can say anything they want about themselves in a primary source. That does not make it true in an encyclopedic sense, which requires verification. I can't believe I am having to explain this; this is Wikipedia 101.
Regarding incubation: I would prefer not to incubate this article. I don't think it should be kept in any form under its present title, mainly because of its history of multiple re-creation after deletion. This subject has wasted enormous amounts of Wikipedian time that could be better spent creating and improving content (possibly even creating an article about the book Power vs. Force). Let's delete this article, salt this title, and if anyone wants to write an article about the book, let them go ahead and see if it passes muster - that's my opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...and in any case it would suggest notability for his book - not necessarily for him. --MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I agree with Tijfo in regards to the newsletter's unreliability in an WP:RS way, however I'm unconvinced it's a WP:BLPSPS. There's very little in independent reliable sources about this person in a biographical sense, and I agree with IRWolfie that his publications don't put him on the map for any applicable notability criteria, from WP:GNG to WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. JFHJr (㊟) 19:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • commentKeep — I apologize that my previous entry seems to have created more heat than light. I will add two links with minimal comment on my part: A recent obituary which appears to be Dr. Hawkins', [9], and a page on the Veritas Publishing site [10]. The Veritas page, while containing obvious window dressing for the purpose of selling books, ALSO contains information fellow editors may find useful for the discussion about notability; in particular, the items beneath the LIFE EVENTS OF INTEREST section...Best wishes to all, Geraldblank (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Geraldblank[reply]
Good sleuthing! It appears that the "David Ramon Hawkins" whose obituary you found is indeed the author we are discussing here. The article gives no indication that he is dead, and none of our searching had turned up that important and very recent fact. (The mortuary notice is dated September 19, 2012; no media outlet seems to have published an obit.) The middle name led me to an item at Squidoo, which provides a birthdate (June 3, 1927) which was missing from the article as well as other biographical details. However, I can't link to or use this info because Wikipedia considers Squidoo a banned site. Overall I still favor delete. This minimal obituary notice and the self-interested info from the publisher do not add to his notability. --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have strong feeling that the report of his death will not be considered a reliable source either if I ask at BLP/N. And "David Ramon Hawkins died September 19, 2012. Services are private." is far from satisfying WP:GNG. The other source is his own publishing company as discussed (to death) above and on the article's talk page. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This debate was probably the death of him.   — Jason Sosa 20:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Geraldblank, since you have already !voted above, [11], I have converted this discussion point to a comment. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Red Pen: So noted; thank you. I've changed my position somewhat, inasmuch as I trust that whatever comes of this second nomination, the greatest good will prevail. I got an honest chuckle out of Jason Sosa's comment, but I also think Hawkins is getting an honest chuckle out of all of us, wherever he is now. Can't begrudge him that! Geraldblank (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Geraldblank[reply]
Wow, that is an incredibly, and sad, coincidence that he died during this debate. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not so surprising when you consider that this debate, or one like it, has been going on for months if not years. --MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I guess to some extent it demonstrates our inability to solve things in a timely manner, since the editing disputes outlive their subjects. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2012 (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/David_R._Hawkins_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137770563"