Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristi Funk

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 no consensus. No consensus has occurred herein. Some arguments are stronger than others, with some being essentially or potentially opinion-based, without providing any guideline-based rationales for deletion or retention. The discussion is mildly leaning delete from an !vote count, but deletion policy is not based upon majority rule. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Funk

[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)

I'm pretty sure that 99.9% of surgeons are non-notable, and the fact that this one has operated on two celebrities and then released details about those procedures on line doesn't make them any more notable. Black Kite (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete and maybe merge any content with the appropriate celeb, not seeing any real independent notability.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as largely self-sourced and obvious PR, with the creating username strongly suggesting autobiography. Guy (Help!) 17:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is somewhat promotional, but she has significant coverage including The Times and ABC News. The is also a book author. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not autobiography and I have no connection to Kristi Funk. Her recent book release has reverberated through the HBOC community and is being widely criticized for its pseudoscience. She is seen as a very controversial individual in the breast cancer field and is certainly notable by Wikipedia standards. The entry needs to reflect more of the controversy around her recent book tour. -- thinkdoc —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 17:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not overtly promotional, topic has significant converage. - Scarpy (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She hasnt published anything in academia for around 20 years, so not academically notable; all of the references are about operating on one celebrity. And now she has published a book that far from "blazing a new trail for breast cancer care" (thats taken straight from one of the oh so flattering refs) just serves up the standard scare woo that cancer is caused by bad diet and "household toxicity". According to that ABC source, she thinks keeping house plants helps. I kid you not, its her third idea, after dusting and vacuuming. Of the refs, the New York Times one is written by Angelina Jolie herself, so hardly independent; People magazine is notoriously favourable to celebrities, and Town and Country more celebrity based than medically accurate. The fourth ref is of course the blog post by Kristi Funk, in which she states she gave Jolie homeopathic preparations as part of the treatment. Ref no.2 from the LA Times is pretty much just a straight interview, so can hardly be taken as properly independent, it even states the writer (who is editor of the LA Times) is also a patient of Funk's. Curdle (talk) 07:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete treating a few celebrities does not make someone notable, nor does one hevily followed blog post.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficiently notable, the coverage - such as it is - being part of the PR drive to club her very dodgy book. If for some reason this entry survives per WP:PSCI the dangerous woo[1] involved here really needs to be teased out. Alexbrn (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – She passes WP:GNG with coverage on ABC and The Today Show among others. She may not pass all notability guidelines but she only needs GNG to be considered notable on Wikipedia. She has a relatively detailed mention in the NYT as well. She is still relevant today with her book and tours as well. Redditaddict6 9 20:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet BLP notability requirements. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 20:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gprscrippers. Daask (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2018 (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.