Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:03, 27 June 2006

Law of Attraction

Mumbo-jumbo, original research. --Aoratos 00:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Pretty much as above. There's already an Esther Hicks page, but I don;t think naything from here is worth merging. Artw 00:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - a load of old pony. --Charlesknight 00:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Mumbo-jumbo. Couldn't have said it better myself. I might have to use that one more often AdamBiswanger1 01:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep I don't see why this article was proposed for deletion in the first place. There are 435,000 google hits. It is quite obvious that this concept is in wide use by many people and the article needs to be expanded to study this. The objections raised so far are OR and POV. We're not interested in whether editors think something is mumbo-jumbo. We're interested in whether something is sufficiently widespread and of note to merit an encyclopedia article. This obviously is. I'm sure a lot of people consider consider that Christianity is mumbo-jumbo. That is not a reason to delete the article on Christianity. There is no wiki criterion for "mumbo jumbo". There is one on "patent nonsense" and this is already addressed on the article talk page:

This self-help maxim is not patent nonsense according to Misplaced Pages's criterion. Spacepotato 22:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Law of Subtraction" gets 2,370,000 ghits. This is not a criterion for notability. Notability has to be established by relying on reliable sources. This hasn't been done in this case. Crum375 02:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion should have been continued before the article was put up for deletion. Tyrenius 01:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NOW if under this name. I can't think of a good name for the article, but if it's moved elsewhere, with the redirect killed, I'd have to consider it more carefully.
• Delete, original research, unsourced except that "it's what Esther Hicks says". NawlinWiki 01:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. non notable original research. Crum375 02:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Have I missed something—how can it be non-notable if it is in such widespread use? Tyrenius 02:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because it is a term used by different people to mean different things, and hence too ambiguous. In any case, one would have to point to valid reliable sources to make a case for notability, which is not in the current article. Crum375 02:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• I focused with my mind, and this article was deleted. Oh wait, it didn't work? Opabinia regalis 02:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Utilize the Law of Deletion, fails WP:NOR, WP:NN. --Coredesat talk 02:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Adds nothing, and looks more advertisement than article. ···Q Huntster 03:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have rewritten this article from NPOV citing sources. There is virtually nothing apart from the title remaining of the original, to which the above comments apply. Tyrenius 03:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per NawlinWiki. (The magnet analogy in the article also makes no sense: only negative and positive attract; negative and negative repel as do positive and positive). Agent 86 06:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep not a neologism or OR, a concept which has been propounded at length by many people. See Tyrenius' comment above. SM247 08:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - it could be useful as it is part of "new age philosophy" but I would agree with the nomination statement - mumbo jumbo. Benjaminstewart05 08:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep but Very Strong Rename to Law of Attraction (New Age) or something if kept. I think I'm right in saying that Law of Attraction most commonly refers to Gravitation. That's a real law. If this "New Age philosophical concept" is kept, it's gotta be renamed and a disambig or somesuch created, linking to old Newton's efforts first, or this will start to look like Wackypedia.

Anyway, with that out of the way, books about this "New Age" concept do seem to exist, so the WP:NOR fails above seem out-of-date (the article has been re-written). There is a slight problem in that, e.g., "Law of Attraction" is mentioned just once in the article about Esther Hicks, supposedly one of the "philosophy"'s leading exponents, and that's only in the name of an external link to a forum with 16 registered users. Ideally, I would like more reliable evidence than this, showing it is a notable New Age terminology, and not just flavour-of-the-month for "seek and ye shall find" and other "philosophical formulations" of the surprisingly self-evident and obvious. --DaveG12345 08:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and rename - not a neologism or OR as noted by SM247, evident from the list of authors who have written about it. Seems to be a genuine notable New Age concept. It should be renamed, though, as it could get confused for gravity and sexual attraction. "Law of Attraction (New Age)" as proposed by DaveG or "Law of Attraction (New Age philosophy)" would do. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 08:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename-apparently a New Age concept, but definitely needs to be Law of Attraction (New Age) or something similar. --Nscheffey 10:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've just spent 3 hours trawling through numerous New Age web sites concerning the "Law of Attraction". They are fairly consistent in their use of this term and mostly refer to Hicks. There are 79,900 Ghits for "Law of Attraction"+Hicks. The argument that this is "mumbo jumbo" is not grounds for deletion. It is at the moment pure POV on behalf of editors saying it. Verifiable sources should be provided that say it is mumbo-jumbo, and this viewpoint can then be included in the article. I have been trying to find a suitable source via 409 Ghits. Maybe someone else can do better. I have moved the page to Law of Attraction (New Age) per above comments.Tyrenius 12:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)