Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Cousens (2nd nomination)

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. While consensus is that in cases of borderline notability, a request to delete an article should be honored, the consensus here is clear that the subject of the article is sufficiently notable beyond the incident of concern that an article on him is valid and desirable; Wikipedia is not censored because the subject of an article doesn't like it. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Cousens

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

I am filing this request on behalf of a customer who has mailed OTRS. His reason is as follows:

I am requesting that the article be deleted and that it remain deleted. A little over a year ago an article on Gabriel Cousens was put up and, after some controversy, was promptly removed for two reasons: Firstly, the article was imbalanced placing undue emphasis on an incident that happened in 1998. This fact is problematic because he really doesn't have a lot of verifiable secondary sources to support what has been a long and fruitful career in alternative medicine. In this regard he is a non-notable.

Due to Wikipedia's strong presence in the Google analogue, it is one of the top websites appearing when one searches for "Gabriel Cousens". What now happens is that an unfortunate incident that happened 14 years ago, and was inaccurately reported on 4 years ago in a Phoenix New Times article, (which seems to have been part of a smear campaign attempting to discredit the AZ Homeopathic Board weeks before its licensing renewal), is now part of Gabriel Cousens first impression for people on the internet. Because the internet is often people's first insight into Dr. Cousens and his work, he is daily being painted in a pejorative and inaccurate light.

I have written about this before, and I suppose the details of why the article is inaccurate are not relevant to you, but I will reiterate that regardless of whether the Phoenix New Times is regarded as a valid secondary source, that article is wrong. Unfortunately by the time Dr. Cousens encountered the article the statute of limitations for libel had run out, and so he is left managing this mess and cannot eradicate its source.

Every couple months this article resurfaces, and we are forced to do damage control. Now thanks to the popularity of Wikipedia, this article is the first thing anyone searching "Gabriel Cousens" comes across. No matter how balanced, fair, or objective the actual Wikipedia article is, as long as the Phoenix New Times article is sourced, (and it will be as long as there is a Wikipedia page), the Wikipedia page becomes a doorway to the libelous PNT article.

I urge you for the sake of this man's livelihood and reputation to delete the Wikipedia article on Gabriel Cousens on grounds of non-notability.

Thank you, <redacted> Tiptoety ^talk 05:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- although the article currently is brief and uses a limited number of sources, there is a longer version in the history with a larger list of sources that make it pretty obvious that he is unambiguously notable by our standards. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't recreate. This article clearly causes the subject distress and the notability is marginal. The best sources are unfortunately about the incident with the patient. When the subject of a marginal BLP like this one objects I think that keeping the article does more harm than good, which is why I nominated this for deletion the first time. AniMate 06:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but on grounds of notability, rather than the subject's request. The coverage in the Phoenix Times alone isn't sufficient, and of the rest of the sources, none meet the bar for WP:GNG. I recommend we avoid salting the article, on the offchance that future coverage confers notability. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC) changed !vote, see below Yunshui 雲‍水 12:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, As article creator, I support keeping this article. There are a variety of reliable sources which support Cousens' notability. There are also two reliable sources, the Phoneix New Times, and the AZ Daily Star, which detail the Levy Controversy. This is not a BLP1E situation; there are many other aspects of Cousens' life which have been written about, including his education, his books, his Tree of Life Center, and the movie Simply Raw. Although I sympathize with the desire to protect Cousens' reputation, I believe we have addressed the controversy in a sourced and balanced way, and it belongs as part of his biography. Ocaasi^{t | c} 11:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* I did not know that any BLP policies or guidelines required permission from an article subject. Has anybody notified Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky? I have looked into the Phoenix New Times article, and primary sources support all the contentions made within the article text. I'm sure that if the article had been inaccurate, Dr Cousens and his solicitors would have taken some kind of action at the time of publication. As to notability, have any of the Delete voters bothered to click on the source search links above? I have been absent from WP for the past few days, but I have been working with the page editors on balancing the coverage and expunging questionable sources, and will continue to do so as soon as possible. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After looking over the sources again, I'm inclined to agree that my earlier assessment was incorrect. As the subject of a documentary film (not as yet a widely distributed one, but a notable one by Wikipedia standards) and of coverage in several reliable sources, a pass of WP:GNG is clearly warranted. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has reliable sources as discussed above, and appears to be neutral in manner. It summarises what the sources have said in a factual tone, without bias either for or against the subject's work. Wikipedia should not delete articles just because somebody doesn't like them. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't recreate. The article is unbalanced. The Levy incident eclipses all other events in the article. Moreover the PNT article is, strictly speaking, the only truly reliable secondary source on the subject. The rest in in house puffery, both self- and colleague-generated. The article does nothing to illuminate Cousens' career. While the events are presented in a factual manner, the sources are anything but objective and unbiased. As for legal action against the publication, I believe the deletion request indicated that the statute of limitations had run out before the article was discovered. The subject is non-notable, and this article will negatively impact his meager career. HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC) — HoneyBadgerCowboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Regardless of the supposed inaccuracy and bias of the Phoenix New Times report, the statements cited to that source are also cited to the Arizona Daily Star and The Arizona Republic, two undoubted reliable sources for the statements. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't understand the preoccupation with Phoenix New Times when there are indeed three reputable publications that wrote about the incident. Ocaasi^{t | c} 18:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although this guy's ideas are a little wacky, he has ipso facto become notable. WP is supposed to pride itself on NPOV, so this article can speak for itself. Even my 'printed' edition of Encyclopedia Britannica has articles about things like dowsing etc. If you put as much effort into trying to delete those articles about a guy that got crucified only to come back to life again- then I could understand this AfD. So, stop banging your heads against a brick wall about this article; get over it and move on.--Aspro (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The documentary film plus extensive news coverage makes this a public figure and valid topic for encyclopedic biography, passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The guy appears to be notable. JoelWhy (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would like to say delete, since for the most part his notability is marginal except for the 1998 incident which would qualify as WP:BLP1E, and the article appears to be doing real world harm. But the documentary gives me pause. The article only says that the documentary covered his Tree of Life Rejuvenation Center, and not necessarily him. The article used as a source does mention him a few times. If the documentary indeed gave significant coverage to Cousens, as opposed to just the Rejuvenation Center, keeping may be appropriate. But given that the article doesn't say that, I am unsure between deleting, keeping or perhaps editing down and renaming to Tree of Life Foundation and Rejuvenation Center. Rlendog (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The film happens at Cousens' Tree of Life Center, under his supervision, and he appears in the film in multiple scenes. Cousens is the center of Tree of Life, and it exists to promote his teachings and philosophy. Maybe the article should make that more clear. Ocaasi^{t | c} 21:34, 4 April 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.