Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas James Cottrell

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 Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-17 09:09Z

[edit] Douglas James Cottrell

Douglas James Cottrell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
Image:Cottrell 2007.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)
Image:Thumb cottrell2.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)
Image:Secrets of life.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Orginal research (see WP:OR), and somewhat promotional language. E.g. "... is among a select few who are able to genuinely demonstrate so many different mental/spiritual abilities: remote viewing, clairvoyance, prediction, prophecy, communication with disembodied souls, ... " --Vsion 05:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The person has published a book, thus I don't question the notability at this point. The problem is OR. --Vsion 05:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I do question notability. A search for the phrase "Many Mansions Press" turns up only 90 results, and the ones that actually pertain to a publisher are all about this book. Being published by a major, reputable publisher confers notability. Being published by a single-purpose publisher does nothing of the kind. Deranged bulbasaur 05:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:V. Article is verifiable. Self publications are not a judge of notability Change to Delete. Didn't consider WP:OR or WP:COI. WP:NN is a guideline not a official policy. --KZ Talk • Vandal • Contrib 08:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • All that says is that self-publication is not a definitive indicator of non-notability. That's far from saying that it is a positive indicator of notability. If we exclude the book as a source of notability and examine other factors, what are we left with, exactly? To be honest, I don't understand your reply. Deranged bulbasaur 09:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; NN, fails WP:ATT big time, WP:OR, WP:BIO. Cottrell has about 130 unique Google hits, his book is over 1.1 million in sales rank on Amazon, and I just found a full seventeen egregious enough unsourced statements on the article to warrant citation tags. Even stripping out all the self-promotional, unproven twaddle, on the face of it as a faith healer he's non-notable. RGTraynor 15:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - he's verifiable, but still not notable. -- Whpq 16:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The only non-self published information is from the forward by a journalist in one of his books. This is not independent sourcing. The only way to see whether a psychic is N or not is to see if there are significant references to him. An elaborate page with no such sources is advertising, not a WP article. DGG 17:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No refs no evidence of notability NBeale 07:22, 16 March 2007 (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.