Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen Virtue

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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doreen Virtue

Doreen Virtue (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No WP:ATT sources, its pretty much an advertisement piece, doesn't meet any notability criteria. A request for sources has been up a month, nothing. It wasn't obvious when I first started, but subsequently I have decided that there are enough secondary sources to create the article, I don't know if withdrawing my nomination is out of order, or if others disagree. Tmtoulouse 04:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Mmoneypenny 13:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as lacking in verifiable and reliable sources. Another Wikipedia page is not a valid source. Nor is one's own work. All we are left with is one USA Today article. Not enough. DarkAudit 14:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment agree with the above, I attempted to go through and clean up the article as best I could. I searched everywhere for any WP:ATT sources and there just are not any. The best I found was a source in the revision history that pointed out some criticism of her. Someone has gone to a lot of trouble to whitewash the article, it just needs to be deleted.
Comment It is impossible to add valid sources as every source except the USA Today article, including several New York Times articles and others are simply deleted by malicious Wikipedians. Recommend the page to be locked from editing until such time as both sides can submit articles without risk of vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.129.57.30 (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
Comment please take this to the talk page of the article, I am willing to discuss with you, but you need to be willing to discuss. Tmtoulouse 15:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment also both the USA today article and the NY times article are not about Virtue, they have only two references to her for quotes about indigo children. These do not prove notability. Tmtoulouse 15:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Hmmm, I have had to do some digging, but I am starting to wonder if I was a little to rash in my AFD. So far we have:

  1. USA Today article
  2. NY Times article
  3. Dallas Observer article
  4. Philadelphia Inquirer article devoted to her
  5. Calgary Sun article devoted to her
  6. She is a featured speaker for the "I can do it" conference in Los Vegas, which is getting serious press, with the likes of Sylvia Browne and Chopra.

I think she is skirting the edge of notability, and more work and digging might be able to create an article. Tmtoulouse 18:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Skirting, maybe, but failing. Subject fails only the most generous reading of WP:BIO. Eusebeus 23:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Content adds little and advertises much. Trinen 01:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment - above user has only edited Doreen Virtue, there is now an attempt by proponents of the author to have the article deleted because of the criticism it contains. I would be suspicious. Tmtoulouse 21:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment - above user nominated page for deletion and then changed his mind and is now making less than vague accusations because I don't agree with his sudden change of heart. I would beware of the dreaded waffle. Trinen 01:08, 14 May 2007 (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.