Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Soskin

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. W.marsh 18:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Julie Soskin

Vanity bio (created by relative Damien Soskin) which fails notability quite drastically. How shameful. Also would like to have Insight and Intuition deleted, created by the same person, similarly not notable, vanity, etc. etc. The Crying Orc 18:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I don't like these natural healers personally, but she is notable. Google her and her organisation and you will come up with lots of hits including the books she has written - some available from Amazon. That is notable enough in my humble opinion --Lethaniol 18:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. She patently NN, and this is obvious promotion. Amazon lists anything that has ever been given an ISBN. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. If there are reliable sources to demonstrate that she's notable in the field, bring them on; otherwise this should go. - Corporal Tunnel 19:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, contains no valid claim to notability under WP:BIO and none is likely. Sandstein 20:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both. Spam spam spam. --Aaron 20:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. My instinct here is to say delete, but she is the author of books from a major publisher, Penguin, so I have to say keep. Gamaliel 21:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both Spam. Major publishers produce a lot of encyclopedically non-notable books. Apparently her school is down the road from my family home in London. This apparently thrives while the local Buddhist centre had to close down, and the old church has been converted into offices. Ah well, each to their own. Bwithh 23:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both as non-notable vanity pages. 500 non-wikipedia, non-amazon 500 ghits, but nearly all from to booksellers. I feel that the author is a slightly weaker delete than the school, in that her bookjs do seem to be widely available, and I would be inclined to consider keeping a new article on Soskin if it made a properly-sourced assertion of notability. However, that's not what we have now, and the current articles are a clear delete. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both. Doesn't appear to be even close to being notable. It would appear to be conflict of interest. author is User:Damiensoskin. The ranking of all but one of her books languish in the 2 -3 millionsth range per Amazon.com. 'How psychic are you' ranks in the 45thousandsth. By the same token, in the UK, her books come in at average position of 700thousandsth, the highest being in the 250thousandsths in Amazon uk. Ohconfucius 10:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Gamaliel, but article needs heavy cleanup, for NPOV and to include information about her publications. JamesMLane t c 08:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both. 896 Ghits for "Julie Soskin" and 38200 Ghits "Insight and Intuition" may not be notable.--Jusjih 14:31, 3 November 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.