Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esther Hicks

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 keep. Ability to attribute sources demonstrated; consensus is to keep despite claim of non-notability. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Esther Hicks

Esther Hicks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unreferenced since December. All sources appear to be self-published. Tone has been improved somewhat, but still seems more of an advertisement than encyclopedic. Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N, WP:A Alf^Photoman 00:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourcable. All potential sources self-published.DGG 06:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Esther is an important individual. She is truly one of kind in metaphysics. Her name is all over the web. She deserves a definition, not recognition. Deleting her is a mistake and will be a mass confusion for those that wish to know exactly who was the person that was paid a huge sum of money from the phenomenal show "The Secret." BillZimmerman 06:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Esther Hicks is an important person, notable if you will, in the New Age world. She gets 1,150,000 hits on google, which is one of wikipedia's tests for notability. If the tone of the article seems wrong then the wikipedian way is to change it, not delete the article.

Carptrash 15:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but improve significantly She passes WP:N because of her recent appearance in The Secret. Personally, I think her "teachings" are BS, but she's popular and notable among New Agey types. As for WP:A, I think these can be rectified with time. My biggest problem with this article is the glaring POV problems, but these too are not beyond fixing. --~Ça Suffit~ 16:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep it. It just needs to be tweaked to be in compliance. It would be foolish to delete the whole topic just because of some technicalities that can be addressed...
• Keep it. Don't see any problem. This entry could have been written by anyone with any knowledge of this person. The fact that they cite publications by her is irrelevant. To write an article on Jane Austen without referencing her novels would be insane. Ditto Esther Hicks.PhiltheBear 15:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The books of Jane Austen are not useful as sources of factual information about Jane Austen herself. All a person's own literary output is useful for is in regarding the views of that individual – not as an independent, reliable source of information about them. — BillC ^talk 00:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep it. Esther Hicks is a significant media figure of the moment. This article is a mess. I will add two references from the NY Times to the article so it will meet the outside, reliable sources criterion. JazzyGroove 20:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep article is perfectly salvageable and relevant as per above.Eaglizard 02:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep . Who is Esther Hicks ? Now at least I know. What is an encyclopedia for anyway ? New Age with a smile ... could be much, much worse.(Lunarian 10:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC))
• Keep Stop the deletionist madness! Let's start improving incomplete articles, not deleting them. She is clearly notable, since she is a NYT-best-selling author, and has a connection to the Secret film. The article also has attained publicity in the NYT, which means she has "notoreity" (though that doesn't necessarily translated into "notability," as some claim) Keep this article, even if it's new age nonsense. I suggest that this AfD be closed early, as per the WP:SNOW guideline. - Nhprman 18:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Okay, looks like we've got a pretty clear majority, and this AfD has brought out new reasons to keep the article. Seeing as this is the case, can we get an Admin to snowball close this baby so we can get on with our lives?--~Ça Suffit~ 12:06, 15 March 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.