Deletion of Donna Eden (2nd nomination)

Comment: Salimfahdley, I see that you solicited the participation of 2over0http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2over0&diff=482025648&oldid=480353778 and IRWolfiehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IRWolfie-&diff=prev&oldid=482008523 as well as several other users http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Calton&diff=prev&oldid=482025494http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tom_Morris&diff=prev&oldid=482009060http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robofish&diff=prev&oldid=482025886 for this AfD, and that 2over0 has properly cautioned you about .http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2over0&diff=482283837&oldid=482281754  Have you have notified the other users who !voted "keep" at the prior AfDs
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASS)

Comment: The following observations seem pretty convincing. (1) Eden has had no real impact in the medical field, as judged by scholarship. Specifically, she has published only 1 paper (Feinstein and Eden, 2008 ''Alt. Ther. Health Med.'') that has only 5 citations. (2) She has written lots of books, but the institutional holdings are not nearly what one would expect for mass-market publications. Examples: ''Energy Medicine'' http://www.worldcat.org/title/energy-medicine/oclc/43516370&referer=brief_results ~140, ''Energy Med. Kit'' http://www.worldcat.org/title/energy-medicine-kit/oclc/149198455&referer=brief_results 1, ''Promise of Energy Psych.'' http://www.worldcat.org/title/promise-of-energy-psychology-revolutionary-tools-for-dramatic-personal-change/oclc/60349023&referer=brief_results ~250. These numbers are very small compared to those of others of established notability. For example, Deepak Chopra|Chopra's many books seem to have many thousands of holdings each, e.g. http://www.worldcat.org/title/ageless-body-timeless-mind-the-quantum-alternative-to-growing-old/oclc/27770907&referer=brief_results this one at ~3400. (3) It is easily argued that Eden is not actually in a field recognized by Evidence-based medicine, so she should not be judged by the same standards, typically . While I think this is true, the implication is then that she would have to pass , which mostly relies on independent, substantive coverage, . Significant effort from many eds seems not to have turned-up much here. (4) I think the bottom line is that requirements are much more strict, especially for BLPs, than the last time this article was visited for AfD 4 years ago, and that it no longer meets these requirements, as they now stand
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: failing ,  and |generally per lack of independent, in-depth sources about her
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:AUTHOR||WP:GNG)