Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carla Rueckert
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 22:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Carla Rueckert
Self Promotion. This article is redirected from Law of One, an article that does not exist, but the link to the phrase has been used in the Edgar Cayce article in order to link to Rueckert's self promoting biography. You will also notice that she is a partner with David Wilcock whose entry has been deleted for self-promotion. Digging even slightly into this entry and the author's misuse of it will clearly indicate that the entry is being used for self-promotion and the promotion of L/L Research (also a deleted article), rather than to list the biography of a noteworthy person. StrangeAttractor (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The article needs cleanup rather then deletion. However either is fine with me. This person in my opinion is only notable for her novels which isn't covered in the article well. The sources for this article appear it was made for self promotion but I don't think your theory is sufficient for a deletion. I'll see if I can do some editing to shapen the article up to help seperate the self promotion which is your lead reason for deletion. -Jahnx (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I've done some editing to the article. Whats your thoughts now? -Jahnx (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe there was ever an L/L Research article. I certainly did not write one. Describing it as a "deleted article" simply because it is a red link is disingenuous. It's difficult for me to contribute to the article much more than I have at this point, because I am in regular e-mail contact with her and sourcing becomes difficult. I would argue that she is a notable metaphysician. I have read only the first two of those books, however. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Apologies for the error -- I thought the L/L article had been deleted because it was a dead link. But the David Wilcock article *was* deleted, so that's why I thought the other was. - StrangeAttractor (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe there was ever an L/L Research article. I certainly did not write one. Describing it as a "deleted article" simply because it is a red link is disingenuous. It's difficult for me to contribute to the article much more than I have at this point, because I am in regular e-mail contact with her and sourcing becomes difficult. I would argue that she is a notable metaphysician. I have read only the first two of those books, however. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've done some editing to the article. Whats your thoughts now? -Jahnx (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, NN psychic. No attribution of notability to independent and credible sources. --Dhartung | Talk 20:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I can not see any thing that might make for notability. There are not more than 40 copies of all her books combined total in all of the US libraries. that's total non-notability as an author.DGG (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
