| Revision as of 11:18, 27 June 2006 editNscheffey (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,278 edits →[]: Keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:10, 27 June 2006 edit undoPeripitus (talk | contribs)38,440 edits →[]: keepNext edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| *'''Comment''' This person appears to be absolutely central to ], so I suspect a few Keeps will be coming... (Will stay '''Neutral''' at present) --] 09:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' This person appears to be absolutely central to ], so I suspect a few Keeps will be coming... (Will stay '''Neutral''' at present) --] 09:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' Like DaveG said, this woman is a huge part of ], which although kind of goofy IMHO is nonetheless quite popular (645,000 google hits). Just needs more criticism and citations to avoid pro-ACIM bias. --]<sup>(]/])</Sup> 11:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' Like DaveG said, this woman is a huge part of ], which although kind of goofy IMHO is nonetheless quite popular (645,000 google hits). Just needs more criticism and citations to avoid pro-ACIM bias. --]<sup>(]/])</Sup> 11:18, 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) | |||
Revision as of 12:10, 27 June 2006
Helen Schucman
Reason this article should be deleted:
This article has been determined 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- WP:NOR - Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that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)
- Delete per above. The article's a great deal of verbiage saying very little more than this lady claimed to channel Jesus. RGTraynor 08:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per well-written nom. --Coredesat talk 08:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This person appears to be absolutely central to A Course in Miracles, so I suspect a few Keeps will be coming... (Will stay Neutral at present) --DaveG12345 09:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Like DaveG said, this woman is a huge part of A Course in Miracles, which although kind of goofy IMHO is nonetheless quite popular (645,000 google hits). Just needs more criticism and citations to avoid pro-ACIM bias. --Nscheffey 11:18, 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)