Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Eden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. There are valid arguments put forth in good faith (and civil too! A sight for sore eyes in AfD-land:-) by both sides, specifically Mbilitatu and Lquilter. The article has been improved (read:tamed) since being tagged, resulting in a keep instead of a no consensus. Keeper | 76 18:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Donna Eden

Donna Eden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Any article with extraordinary claims such as -born ability to literally see the body's energies needs really, really, strong sources. Corvus cornixtalk 07:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - per Corvus cornix and because it doesn't have any referenced statements of notability. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 07:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - she has four books published, at least two of them by reputable publishers (Putnam and Penguin). The "extraordinary claim" you mention should obviously be attributed, but that's not a reason for deleting the entire article. Gatoclass (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree that it certainly needs editing and improving - it's just the first stub. I am fairly new to writing articles, but based on the guidelines it does not seem to me that it deserves deletion ... she is well known in the energy medicine community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vazka (talk • contribs) 09:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Publication =/= automatically notability. Extraordinary claims, with reliable evidence or sources backing them, nor any sign of real-world or historic impact or influence. --Calton | Talk 10:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I guess it depends on whether or not you think publication by a reliable publisher constitutes coverage by "a secondary source which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I'm inclined to think it does, but I guess it's a matter of opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I am new to Wiki as a contributor, but my belief is that an article on Donna Eden is reasonable. I added a couple of citations where requested. To label the phrase born ability to see the body's energies as an extraordinary claim is itself subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbilitatu (talk • contribs) 10:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC) — Mbilitatu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Mbilitatu, I believe that Wikipedia:Fringe theories is appropriate here. --Lquilter (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Can't say that I support her philosophy, but notability does appear do be demonstrated. WWGB (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appears notable enough given the number of books and links cited. Needs perhaps additional sourcing if there are any claims of concern, plus it needs to adhere to WP:BLP. I noticed the BLP banner wasn't included so I have added it which may spark additional improvements by members of the Bio WikiProject. 23skidoo (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I see a lot of sources, but how many of them actually qualify as reliable? Not many, indeed probably none. The only source that's arguably reliable and independent of the subject is the Amazon bestsellers chart, and even if she's sold a lot of books, I'm not sure we can justify a biography based on that alone. This article also has serious problems with both neutrality and factual accuracy; I sincerely doubt that she really can 'see the body's energies' or 'correct imbalances in the body'. If it is kept, all that will need to be cleaned up. Terraxos (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Alternative healing is part of the New Age movement, which is not scientific of course, but that doesn't mean it isn't notable. We also have articles on Scientology, or Wicca, and I'm sure there are plenty of folks who think the ideas behind these movements are preposterous, but they are still regarded as notable phenomena. As to the particular claims you mention, as I've said the only problem I see with them is that they are unattributed. They have to be attributed, even if only to Eden herself. Gatoclass (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Those belief systems and movements are notable, but that doesn't mean that their claims are valid, of course. Attributing claims to sources is not the only hurdle; those also have to be reliable sources. Again, please see WP:FRINGE. --Lquilter (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
As you yourself said: "Eden's own website is a reliable source for her claims", so I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Gatoclass (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Question?. Again, I'm new to this, so please forgive my ignorance of the process. Are we not confusing two issues: notability and believability? I get the sense that many contributors do not believe in energy, energy medicine or the ability to see it. Fine. Is that the issue here? Donna Eden is well known in her field, but her field and the people who refer to her are not going to be mainstream scientists. I get that the sources have to be reliable, but it's not clear to me that folks understand the sources. Kripalu, Esalen and Omega are all well known alternative centers ... do we need to create pages for them and cite sources to justify that statement? That said ... I agree that the content of the article is too promotional for an encyclopedia. Is it policy to delete an article which is in need of improvement?--Mbilitatu (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note I cleaned up the content, isolated the bolder claims, added some qualifying language, and included a controversy section. --Mbilitatu (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That looks better but I think you overdid it a tad, so I've toned it down a bit. Gatoclass (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appears to be notable in the field. FWIW, paranormal or miraculous claims or fringe beliefs do not need "stronger" sourcing than any other assertion of belief. Descriptions of the substance of a claim or the nature of a belief system are what we can look for. Reliable sources on these matters are those which reliably report what is believed; and statements by the believers are generally reliable on these matters, even if others find the beliefs unlikely. What is ultimately "true" or not is beyond our competence. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This author is notable within their field as evidenced by the fact that they have a book with a high Amazon ranking, she meets all of the criteria for having a Wikipedia page. The page is also sourced and cited. No valid reason for deletion. - perfectblue (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Marginal notability according to Wikipedia standards that rely on publications and particularly looking at WP:PROF for assessing influence of the work (this method would pick up influence within the New Age community insofar as the New Age community publishes). If notable, obviously the "ability" claims can be discussed as claims; Eden's own website is a reliable source for her claims -- claims being statements that one makes about oneself. But this still needs some work on clarity and to comply with style for WP:FRINGE.
  • The basic ghits is 56,000. It's a common name, but the first 30 hits are all this Donna Eden, so I'll assume some google-juice. However, looking at the substance of the hits, these include primarily biographies of her for places/events where she's spoken (which are likely not "independent" sources for claims like "world's authority" or "world-renowned"; that's typical puffery for organizations trying to get people to come to an event), and a lot of bookstores with her books (remaindered, I note), and her LinkedIn page.
  • Google News returns ZERO hits. That's really not good and indicates, to me, that some significant amount of the other hits are self-promotion. People who do lots of speaking & lecture tours, as Donna Eden does, rely on self-promotion and often have a lot of google hits, but you can usually see that it's a result of self-promotion by looking at Google News.
  • Google scholar returns 50 hits, but a number of them are not clearly this Donna Eden -- on healthcare stats, opthalmology, high school guidance counseling. Works that are clearly this Donna Eden include the book Energy Medicine which was cited by 20; another related cite cited by 2; an Energy Psychology cited by 38; and about 25 other items only two of which were cited by anyone at all, and those two cited once and twice, respectively. Those 25 were largely not significant treatments, although many of them were references or quotes. I think that within the published New Age literature, this is marginal.
  • The "world expert" claim btw is from a speaking engagement biography so it's really not correct to say that she "is" or "is recognized as"; she probably wrote that herself, as is common with speakers. That needs a reliable source, and news media is usually a good source for that sort of thing, but there are no news media sources for her.
Lquilter (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply - The standard for notabiliy is notability in a person's field.
  • WP:PROF is for academics (i.e., professors). I disagree that the standards of WP:PROF would pick up influence within the New Age community insofar as the New Age community publishes.. The academic community, the community of professors, is not the only community that publishes and is not the community which is the arbiter of notability or truth. Requiring that a non-academic be assessed as notable within the academic papers seems non-neutral to me. In addition, although in common usage, applying the label 'New Age' is already applying the mainstream POV to her work. People in Energy Medicine would not refer to themselves by that label. From wiki New Age, Individuals who hold any of its beliefs may not identify with the name, and the name may be applied as a label by outsiders to anyone they consider inclined towards its world view.
  • Within her field, I actually think a vibrant schedule of talks and classes is an indication of notability. The article does not rely on this, but filling public talk after talk or class after class is excruciatingly difficult unless a person has a widely recognized name.
  • I agree that many of Donna Eden's Google hits are self promotion. But most of your argument to justify the statement that Donna Eden has Marginal notability according to Wikipedia standards seems to be based on Google hits. If you will take a look at Talk:Donna Eden, you will see my comments about the sources used in the article. Those sources have tons of Google hits, so by the same standard, I believe the article sources from reliable sources.
  • That said, the point you bring up about people writing their own glorious biographical statement ... that's a good point. It would be good to back up that claim better.
  • Yes, the news media is not interested in Donna Eden. In general, Energy medicine does not make the news. If you Google news 'Paris Hilton' you get 4,933 hits. If you Google news 'acupuncture', you get 719 hits. If you Google news 'energy medicine', you get 26 hits. Donna Eden is notable in a field that has largely been ignored in the western world. Paris Hilton is famous. Donna Eden is not famous, but from WP:Notability, notability is distinct from "fame".
  • You did not comment on her amazon ranking. The Energy Medicine book is currently #2 in the Energy Healing category, #3 in Health Mind and Body authors, and #11 in New Age. This is a book that was published in 1999, so those positions are not the result of a manipulation.--Mbilitatu (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2008 (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.