Talk:Hay House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Stub rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.


It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

[edit] Recent changes

User:Ekabhishek has just made a large number of changes to this article (and to Louise Hay that introduce a large number of claims that are:

  1. sourced to a large number of unscholarly sources of very doubtful reliability -- often little more than PR puffery;
  2. often not contained in even these sources.

I have therefore reverted them. HrafnTalkStalk 06:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notabilty has been established

The notability of Hay House has been established per WP:NOTE. If you do not feel that this is notable, please precisely list reasons.

And, please, quit harrassing this and other spiritualist articles with notability tags. Thanks, Madman (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notabilty has been asserted not established

  1. Establishing notability, per WP:NOTE, requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
  2. eight of the eleven citations are to Hay House and/or its foreign partners -- and are thus not "independent".
  3. of the remaining three, one is a brief commercial-blurb/bio of Hay herself that makes no mention of Hay House, one is simply a financials summary, leaving only a short profile in a publishers' trade magazine (Forward) -- hardly "significant coverage".

As to your latest baseless accusation and demand, I would request that you please:

  1. Follow WP:AGF by stopping making such baseless accusations
  2. Follow WP:V by stopping restoring unsourced material
  3. Follow WP:NOTE by providing evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", rather than simply asserting notability

HrafnTalkStalk 13:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the citations are above average for a stub article. Here are hundreds and hundreds of Google news hits. This subject is obviously notable. Madman (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The (newly inserted) San Diego Union-Tribune piece would probably count as "significant coverage". But "obviously notable" is a cop-out -- it is asserting notability without bothering to do the hard work of finding substantial independent sources, that are necessary for building a credible article in any case. That is why WP:NOTE & WP:ORG explicitly require WP:RSs. It is also interesting to note that the 1984 date is not/is no longer in the Billboard piece -- another piece of erroneous pseudoinformation due to careless sourcing. HrafnTalkStalk 15:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)