Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Helen Schucman: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:57, 27 June 2006 editRavenswing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers59,921 edits →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 08:47, 28 June 2006 edit undoAndrew Parodi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,627 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit →
(17 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
* '''Comment'''. Just to inform fellow editors: it appears that the nomination of this page by ] for deletion is a “bad faith” deletion attempt. ] has recently submitted deletion nominations for all of the following ]-related articles: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]. And in the article ], ] will not accept ANY websites as “verifiable” websites with regard to ACIM, including and , both of which are the official websites of California-based non-profit organizations. This editor's deletion attempts are merely personal bias masquerading as adherence to Misplaced Pages policy. And it appears that this editor has a history with this kind of behavior. Please see: ] -- ] 07:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
----

:*'''Comment''' - One could, with at least as much accuracy, question your own bias, seeing as your contribution list shows that you are significantly invested in these articles. For my part, I'm failing to see why believing that the entire ACIM movement (and thus, all related articles) is non-notable constitutes ''prima facie'' bad faith, nor what is objectionable about Ste4k's proper insistence on unbiased ''third party'' websites for verification; of course we're not going to take ACIM's uncorroborated word for its claims about itself, any more than we would about any other subject's own website. ] 00:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
:::'''Comment''' I am presenting no bias. What did I present above? Facts. Click on each link and see that this person is indeed behind the deletion attempts of all of these pages.

:::The only "investment" is an investment in fairness. This editor is claiming that ACIM is not notable and not even a verifiable phenomenon, which is tantamount to saying that ACIM doesn't even exist. When we present the official websites of ACIM in attempts to prove that ACIM ''does'' exist and ''is'' notable, this editor ignores that and says they are not suitable.

:::Because I do read ACIM, it goes without saying that these articles are of interest to me. But that isn't the issue at hand. The issue is that most editors agree that ACIM is a notable topic, and this person is on his/her own campaign to contradict what is the consensus of many neutral editors.

:::You wrote: ''"For my part, I'm failing to see why believing that the entire ACIM movement (and thus, all related articles) is non-notable constitutes ''prima facie'' bad faith, nor what is objectionable about Ste4k's proper insistence on unbiased ''third party'' websites for verification...."'' In that same vein, I am failing to see why my presentation of facts (that this editor has nominated several ACIM-related articles for deletion and continues to deny that ACIM is notable and verifiable, often rejecting every reasonable bit of verification offered) should be discounted simply because I read ACIM and am paying attention to what this editor is doing. -- ] 01:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

===]=== ===]===
''Reason this article should be deleted:'' ''Reason this article should be deleted:''


'''This article has been determined to be noncompliant to ] as discussed in it's here based on :''' '''] believes that this article has been determined by to be noncompliant to ] as discussed in it's here based on :'''


* ] - Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position. This article hasn't any actual resources except circular references to a single book which doesn't describe Helen Schucman, and only arguably has any content from her writings. This violation of policy is '''not''' about the debatability of her writings. It doesn't matter if her writings are true or not, or if others had the right to publish ideas from them those writings. * ] - Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position. This article hasn't any actual resources except circular references to a single book which doesn't describe Helen Schucman, and only arguably has any content from her writings. This violation of policy is '''not''' about the debatability of her writings. It doesn't matter if her writings are true or not, or if others had the right to publish ideas from them those writings.
Line 33: Line 43:
:*'''Comment''' - And she is cited repeatedly in that article. There's very little content in Schucman's own article that isn't in the ACIM article. ] 16:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) :*'''Comment''' - And she is cited repeatedly in that article. There's very little content in Schucman's own article that isn't in the ACIM article. ] 16:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' article is a complete mess and subject was probably a fruitcake. These are reasons for cleanup/NPOV/OR tags rather than deleting. She seems to have spawned a fairly well known thing in ACIM, has had numerous books written that cannot but have her as a central figure. Certainly is notable and sourced enough. Certainly a hard subject to write a good article about but worth keeping. Well thought out nomination though --] ] 12:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' article is a complete mess and subject was probably a fruitcake. These are reasons for cleanup/NPOV/OR tags rather than deleting. She seems to have spawned a fairly well known thing in ACIM, has had numerous books written that cannot but have her as a central figure. Certainly is notable and sourced enough. Certainly a hard subject to write a good article about but worth keeping. Well thought out nomination though --] ] 12:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:'''Comment'''. Helen Schucman was actually considered by most who knew her to be a highly intelligent and intellectual woman. As is discussed on the ] article (an article Ste4k wants deleted), Helen Schucman never literally meant that Jesus was the source of A Course in Mircales. She meant it was symbolic and metaphoric. -- ] 23:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' ] itself is largely unsourced and unverifiable, and appears to hope to establish notability by being listed in this encyclopedia rather than being notable in the first place. Most of its articles were written by two people who suffer from too much information looking for a topic. The creeping-artikalism of such a category in itself required at least six speedy deletes for ] and ]. The book itself hasn't yet established whom has actually written it. Please see discussions in the for much more information. It successfully evaded peer scrutiny in my humble opinion. ] 16:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC) :'''Comment''' ] itself is largely unsourced and unverifiable, and appears to hope to establish notability by being listed in this encyclopedia rather than being notable in the first place. Most of its articles were written by two people who suffer from too much information looking for a topic. The creeping-artikalism of such a category in itself required at least six speedy deletes for ] and ]. The book itself hasn't yet established whom has actually written it. Please see discussions in the for much more information. It successfully evaded peer scrutiny in my humble opinion. ] 16:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' Actually, there is a great deal of verifiable evidence about A Course In Miracles. You simply will not accept this. I wish you would stop wasting everyone's time and stop trying to call attention to yourself and get everyone's approval. As per the large amounts of Google hits and its Amazon.com sakes ranking, it is obvious that ACIM hardly needs Misplaced Pages to establish its notability. ACIM was notable BEFORE the invention of Misplaced Pages. And the authorship of the book is indeed established, and is in fact discussed on the pages ] and ], pages which, if you had your way, others would not be able to read because they would be deleted.

:The issue is not whether ACIM is notable or not, but that you ''don't want'' ACIM to ''be'' notable. I find this fascinating. I find you fascinating. Please share more about yourself with the rest of us. So far, we know that you are new to Misplaced Pages and don't like ACIM. Is there anything more you'd like to share? -- ] 19:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' I hope everyone is aware that Ste4k has a personal vendetta against all ACIM-related articles on Misplaced Pages. In addition to supporting the deletion attempt of the article ], this user has initiated deletion attempts of the following ACIM-related articles: ], ], ], ], and ]. And on the main ACIM page, this editor will not accept anything, not even the official sites of Foundation for ACIM and Foundation for Inner Peace, as acceptable sources. Personal bias masked as attempt to uphold Misplaced Pages guidelines (all the while ignoring Misplaced Pages guidelines by trying to deprive Misplaced Pages of articles about a notable topic). -- ] 18:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom, fails ] by miles (and could '''redirect''' without merge to ] which appears to include some non-ACIM-source material). ] ] 20:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. Please note: I just conducted some editing of this page, removing what I believe to be unfocused comments, and interjecting what I believe to be a more encyclopedic tone. The article needs work, obviously, but not deletion. -- ] 00:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' or merge to ACIM or Foundation for ACIM. Notable course, but association with it not make a notable individual. Ste4k's blanket deletion-nominations of these articles is no more bad faith than ACIM members blanket creation of them. If you create lots of bad articles about your non-notable people in your favourite cult, you should expect them to get nominated at once. -- ]

Revision as of 08:47, 28 June 2006

  • Comment - One could, with at least as much accuracy, question your own bias, seeing as your contribution list shows that you are significantly invested in these articles. For my part, I'm failing to see why believing that the entire ACIM movement (and thus, all related articles) is non-notable constitutes prima facie bad faith, nor what is objectionable about Ste4k's proper insistence on unbiased third party websites for verification; of course we're not going to take ACIM's uncorroborated word for its claims about itself, any more than we would about any other subject's own website. RGTraynor 00:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment I am presenting no bias. What did I present above? Facts. Click on each link and see that this person is indeed behind the deletion attempts of all of these pages.
The only "investment" is an investment in fairness. This editor is claiming that ACIM is not notable and not even a verifiable phenomenon, which is tantamount to saying that ACIM doesn't even exist. When we present the official websites of ACIM in attempts to prove that ACIM does exist and is notable, this editor ignores that and says they are not suitable.
Because I do read ACIM, it goes without saying that these articles are of interest to me. But that isn't the issue at hand. The issue is that most editors agree that ACIM is a notable topic, and this person is on his/her own campaign to contradict what is the consensus of many neutral editors.
You wrote: "For my part, I'm failing to see why believing that the entire ACIM movement (and thus, all related articles) is non-notable constitutes prima facie bad faith, nor what is objectionable about Ste4k's proper insistence on unbiased third party websites for verification...." In that same vein, I am failing to see why my presentation of facts (that this editor has nominated several ACIM-related articles for deletion and continues to deny that ACIM is notable and verifiable, often rejecting every reasonable bit of verification offered) should be discounted simply because I read ACIM and am paying attention to what this editor is doing. -- Andrew Parodi 01:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Helen Schucman

Reason this article should be deleted:

Ste4k believes that this article has been determined by to be noncompliant to Misplaced Pages content policy as discussed in it's here based on :

  • WP:NOR - Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position. This article hasn't any actual resources except circular references to a single book which doesn't describe Helen Schucman, and only arguably has any content from her writings. This violation of policy is not about the debatability of her writings. It doesn't matter if her writings are true or not, or if others had the right to publish ideas from them those writings.
It only matters:
1. that what is put in the article matches the sources.
2. that those sources are reliable.
It is therefore based solely on original research.
  • WP:NOT - Misplaced Pages is not a place to publish original thoughts and analyses.
  • WP:VER - Information on Misplaced Pages must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed. There are no verifiable resources to establish any reputability about this psychologist. The only available resources are self-published references to hearsay that differ in their opinions.
  • WP:NPOV - This article is not written from the neutral point of view, and appears to hope to advertise the external links, rather than to use them as sources of information.
  • WP:BIO - The subject of this article fails to meet criteria testing whether a person has sufficient external notice to ensure that they can be covered from a neutral point of view based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research. As a psychologist, hasn't anything notable to mention. As an author she hasn't received multiple independent reviews of or awards for her work.
It should be noted here that these ratings show copyright contention among the listings.
  • WP:NOT - Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Misplaced Pages articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind. That includes relatively unknown psychologists which cannot be determined to have been responsible for various contending opinions about the ideas which she may or may not have written. Nor is it a platform to create an indiscriminate number of self-referenced, recursive sourcing articles that intend to establish obfuscated reputation.

and serves only to further promote non-notable topics rather than to report what is notable. Ste4k 06:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Ste4k, it's great when editors make thorough nominations, but it is not necessary to quote policies. You can just mention them or link to them. -- Kjkolb 06:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks and apologies since I am rather new here. :) Several other nominations I had put up earlier got the opposite sort of comment. I'll strive to find the happy medium and I appreciate your comment. Ste4k 06:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - And she is cited repeatedly in that article. There's very little content in Schucman's own article that isn't in the ACIM article. RGTraynor 16:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep article is a complete mess and subject was probably a fruitcake. These are reasons for cleanup/NPOV/OR tags rather than deleting. She seems to have spawned a fairly well known thing in ACIM, has had numerous books written that cannot but have her as a central figure. Certainly is notable and sourced enough. Certainly a hard subject to write a good article about but worth keeping. Well thought out nomination though --Peripitus (Talk) 12:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Helen Schucman was actually considered by most who knew her to be a highly intelligent and intellectual woman. As is discussed on the Authorship of A Course in Miracles article (an article Ste4k wants deleted), Helen Schucman never literally meant that Jesus was the source of A Course in Mircales. She meant it was symbolic and metaphoric. -- Andrew Parodi 23:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment A Course in Miracles itself is largely unsourced and unverifiable, and appears to hope to establish notability by being listed in this encyclopedia rather than being notable in the first place. Most of its articles were written by two people who suffer from too much information looking for a topic. The creeping-artikalism of such a category in itself required at least six speedy deletes for WP:NOT and WP:NEO. The book itself hasn't yet established whom has actually written it. Please see discussions in the Articles of Deletion for much more information. It successfully evaded peer scrutiny in my humble opinion. Ste4k 16:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment Actually, there is a great deal of verifiable evidence about A Course In Miracles. You simply will not accept this. I wish you would stop wasting everyone's time and stop trying to call attention to yourself and get everyone's approval. As per the large amounts of Google hits and its Amazon.com sakes ranking, it is obvious that ACIM hardly needs Misplaced Pages to establish its notability. ACIM was notable BEFORE the invention of Misplaced Pages. And the authorship of the book is indeed established, and is in fact discussed on the pages Authorship of A Course in Miracles and Helen Schucman, pages which, if you had your way, others would not be able to read because they would be deleted.
The issue is not whether ACIM is notable or not, but that you don't want ACIM to be notable. I find this fascinating. I find you fascinating. Please share more about yourself with the rest of us. So far, we know that you are new to Misplaced Pages and don't like ACIM. Is there anything more you'd like to share? -- Andrew Parodi 19:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I hope everyone is aware that Ste4k has a personal vendetta against all ACIM-related articles on Misplaced Pages. In addition to supporting the deletion attempt of the article Authorship of A Course in Miracles, this user has initiated deletion attempts of the following ACIM-related articles: William Thetford, Kenneth Wapnick, Foundation for Inner Peace, Foundation for A Course In Miracles, and Gary Renard. And on the main ACIM page, this editor will not accept anything, not even the official sites of Foundation for ACIM and Foundation for Inner Peace, as acceptable sources. Personal bias masked as attempt to uphold Misplaced Pages guidelines (all the while ignoring Misplaced Pages guidelines by trying to deprive Misplaced Pages of articles about a notable topic). -- Andrew Parodi 18:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:V by miles (and could redirect without merge to A Course in Miracles which appears to include some non-ACIM-source material). Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please note: I just conducted some editing of this page, removing what I believe to be unfocused comments, and interjecting what I believe to be a more encyclopedic tone. The article needs work, obviously, but not deletion. -- Andrew Parodi 00:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge to ACIM or Foundation for ACIM. Notable course, but association with it not make a notable individual. Ste4k's blanket deletion-nominations of these articles is no more bad faith than ACIM members blanket creation of them. If you create lots of bad articles about your non-notable people in your favourite cult, you should expect them to get nominated at once. -- GWO