Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law of Attraction

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 of the debate was Keep. Avi 04:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Law of Attraction

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

• Please note as below (03:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)) that this article has been almost entirely rewritten—and renamed— since the above nom was made. Thank you. Tyrenius 23:33, 28 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 Wikipedia's criterion. Spacepotato 22:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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

• For the record "Law of Subtraction" gets 50 Ghits and there is an article on Subtraction. The Google test is widely accepted as an indicator of whether a subject is sufficiently widespread to merit inclusion. Tyrenius 13:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Law of Attraction and new age has 87,200 Ghits, many copies of each other. Presumably Law of subtraction is not what you guys wanted to search for? ---CH 04:49, 28 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment I think my signature was deleted. That vote is now a nullity, as the article has been rewritten and moved. I'm still leaning delete, but I'll have to consider the options carefully. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, unsourced except that "it's what Esther Hicks says". NawlinWiki 01:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Keep (latest version). 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 Weak Keep per above. Adds nothing, and looks more advertisement than article. per Tyrenius rewrite. ···Q Huntster ^{(T) • @ • (C)} 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. (Renamed OK) --DaveG12345 12:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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^(T/C) 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)

Googling around some, I agree it seems that Esther Hicks et Al. are heavily promoting this concept as a money maker for them. It seems they do such a good job at promotion that notability is established, IMO. I change my vote to neutral for now, as my concern is WP becoming a vehicle for continued promotion. Crum375 13:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - Sure, it's mumbo jumbo, but a lot of people believe that mumbo jumbo. MaxMangel 13:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Sure it's stupid, but it's noteworthy stupidity, as far as I can see. WilyD 14:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WilyD. I saved this thing from speedy because I had heard of it from hick "self-educated" relatives and a few dingbat "free-thinking" ex-girlfriends. It is idiocy, but it is widespread idiocy. As per the example of Creationism, Wikipedia embraces articles on all that is encyclopedically notable, irrespective of any opinions on the wisdom of those subjects. Xoloz 15:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:VER, WP:RS, might pass WP:BJ, but I doubt it. Ste4k 07:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP - Mumbo-jumbo is NOT an arguement, it's an opinion. This article have lots or support via visits and interest. Don't let your OR or POV block the main viewpoint, which is the interest in the statement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.114.134.42 (talk • contribs) 17:50, June 27, 2006 (UTC).

• Note this is this user's only contribution. Crum375 18:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Help me expand! Anyone is welcome to help me edit the page. The subject is not what's being discussed, is it? What is discussed here is the Wikipedia entry, if it should stay or not. You may insert a chapter in the entry with criticism against the concept, but instead of defending a veto, help me add another interesting view on the subject. AwenStormFool (talk)
• Keep, now that it was renamed to include "(New Age)," as it seems to pass wikipedia criteria. Can someone create a disambiguation page, though? There's a movie called Laws of Attraction, and there should probably be a link to "gravity" on the disambiguation page as well. Universitytruth 21:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep from an avowed deletionist who accepts there are a whole bunch of charlatans reaching out to desperate people out there. Article needs some NPOV balancing though. The renaming helped. could do with more Bwithh 04:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vio NP:NOR-WP:RS. Also, author is AwenStormFool (talk • contribs), a single user account, and I suspect this article may be basically an advert for lawsofattraction.com and other sites mentioned, which apparently provide "new age services" for a fee. ---CH 04:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep I think this is a unique subject which will grow.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.159.47.19 (talk • contribs) .

• Excuse me! I'm actually the author of the current text, as you will see if you read above. I only became acquainted with this "law" through the AfD, researched it (as above) and concluded that it met wiki criteria. Why don't you check it out yourself on Google. Tyrenius 09:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Excuse me#2 I'm the author of the original entry, yes, but I don't sell anything. The original links I put were a video that was available FOR FREE at Google Video and another website with free-access articles. There has never been anything for sale on the entry and if there ever is, it will have been inserted by somebody else, not me. What I actually suspect is that somebody who is trying to sell something is gathering people to attack the entry. The Law of Attraction is a widespread concept and it simply doesn't make sense Wikipedia does not have an entry for that.AwenStormFool

• Comment. I think Tyrenius's latest version is a keeper, so I changed my vote above accordingly. Crum375 14:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Delete per nom. Wikibout-Talk to me! 16:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• The nom based his decision on the old version. The new version has been redone from scratch, and was enough to change my vote from Delete to Keep. I think that if you vote at this stage, you need to explain your reasons better. Thanks, Crum375 19:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I still feel it is mumbo-jumbo, and the new version isn't enough to change my mind. Wikibout-Talk to me! 17:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be saying that you think the Law of Attraction is mumbo-jumbo. That is not a reason in itself to delete the article. Please read the earlier arguments on this page. Tyrenius 01:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

True, I was pushing my own POV. I'll stop myself. Wikibout-Talk to me! 15:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being so honest and reconsidering. Tyrenius 20:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, article looks good now. --Coredesat talk 05:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article has soem sources to show the term has some use and does a good job explaining what it is in an NPoVway. Ace of Sevens 15:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: expand heavily. I'd like to see how I. Regardie mentions this law. Zos 06:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment According to his earlier works, it appears that this article is misleading. By lumping all of these authors into a group based solely upon the moniker, their individual opinions on the matter, specifically whether "like attracts like" or "like repels like" has become ambiguous by this article. Ste4k 07:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could indicate this appropriately in the article. Tyrenius 07:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Bizarre but seemingly well-covered, and article is sourced now. Nice job. Grandmasterka 07:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The subject of the article is an important kind of philosophy, new age or not, that will only spread with time.--Bennyb 11:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This is this user's only edit. Crum375 11:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep; while I consider pseudoscience distasteful, this seems to be a genuine phenomenon. --Guinnog 15:06, 3 July 2006 (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.