Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Janis

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 delete. --Ezeu 03:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Janis

After having done some minor edits to improve the article's quality a little bit. I've come to the conclusion that this article is a thinly veiled advertisement. Even though subject is an author, I am not convinced that they are notable enough to warrant inclusion. Plus the only link provided is a link to a commercial site.Delete Based on comments from a fellow editor, in the interests of fairness, I have decided to strike the original language I used for my nomination. It was non neutral and somewhat biased. Though my vote is still to delete, as I agree with most of the comments from the other participants. I apologize if my language was in any way abusive, malicious and/or disrespectful, as I happen to admire the Wikipedia philosophy of treating every editor with respect.TheRingess 04:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep She's an Emmy award winner and she has a decent number of Google results for her name. That's good enough for me. joturner 04:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JoturnerDelete per below. I should have double-checked first...--TBCTaLk?!? 04:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per TBC. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 05:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but clean up. The subject is notable, but the article is in horrible shape, and needs to be brought within the bounds of WP:NPOV. --Coredesat talk 08:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. She is not, in fact, an "Emmy winner." The local newscast for which she was a film editor was nominated for a local Emmy (there are twenty-someodd regional "Emmy" chapters). Her IMDB credits are all in film editing, not in line editing. RGTraynor 08:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per RGTraynor. Fails WP:NPOV, article isn't truthful. It sure fooled me before I double-checked. --Coredesat talk 09:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Her claim to fame appears to be the books she's written. But I can't find any independent (non-Amazon Customer) reviews of any of them. Until I see some I say delete. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 11:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity and/or advertising page. Article does not assert anything that meets WP:BIO. Per RGTraynor the Emmy claim appears to be false and the IMdB credits are not inspiring --Peripitus (Talk) 12:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per RGTraynor. -- Kicking222 13:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't appear notable KleenupKrew 20:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Award information is on her company's video page. Has photo of awards -- Emmy, New York International Television Festival, National Associated Press Board of Directors, Los Angeles Press Club, and others. Book reviews from Publishers Weekly and others are on this page and on this page. Her website is not commercial, but an extensive website of free multimedia spiritual resources that has been awarded cool site of the day -- I've read her book Spirituality For Dummies. jaime234 04:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Although the website does have free things, it is still a commercial website. The comments made by other editors about the emmy award are still true. To me, the article is still vanity and self promotion.TheRingess 14:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Apparently TheRingess has also gone into other groups such as Siddha Yoga, a spiritual organization that both TheRingess and this author/filmmaker are members of -- trying to remove and alter an entry for this woman's webpage there. Seems that TheRingess has some kind of personal vendetta against the person. Photo of the woman winning her emmy and holding it on this page Just to be clear, I don't have an opinion as to whether this person should be included in wikipedia, but personal vendettas or issues should not be the deciding factor. jaime234 15:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Well there's not much I can say to your accusations, except they aren't true, but that's besides the point. Thank goodness, the status of the article will be determined through well reasoned discussion based on the principles of Wikipedia. And thankfully every editor's opinion and insights are respected. This discussion is a very good example of how the nomination process works on Wikipedia. As you can see, everyone has an equal say. Remember this is not a vote of any kind just a discussion of the merits of the article. Which I'd like to add, has basically only a single source, and many details that are practically impossible to easily verify, which goes against wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability. I don't think you read my comments, I did not insult the subject of this article at all. Also, comments about "sour cereal" and "asanas" are best left on users talk pages, since many particpants in this discussion will have no idea what those terms might mean. Ditto for mailing lists that would have no appeal to fellow Wikipedia editors. Please leave any personal comments of that nature only on my talk page.TheRingess 00:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment TheRingess, I did post this message on your talk page, and you deleted it. Although you didn’t delete some of the other entries accusing you of acting in bad faith, which I would also echo. You have arrogantly declared this article to be vanity and self promotion – do you think that headshaker from the UK who started this article is the author trying to promote herself? Ridiculous. He is probably someone who appreciated this author’s work, as I also am. This page is just a normal biography of a fairly accomplished and interesting filmmaker and author, with the information probably based on the author’s memoir and website. Again, if it is not in line with Wikipedia, fine, delete it, but there is no need for you to do so with such disrespect and maliciousness.Jaime234 02:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

To TheRingess: Thanks for the welcome and signature info. I've been looking through wikipedia over the last couple weeks, and noticed your comments on the Siddha Yoga page, also remember you writing on the SGMKJ newslist, so know that you are or have been a devotee, as I've been. I disagreed with some of your changes on the Siddha Yoga page, and saw that you went after a link to the website of Sharon (Kumuda) Janis, also a devotee, on that page, which led to a free reading of her book about living in the South Fallsburg ashram for ten years. Although I've never met Sharon, I've read her books and spent hours upon hours going through her massive webpage of chanting, videos, writings, photos, etc. Looked up Sharon's page on wikipedia and saw that you are adamently sponsoring a movement to remove her page, while making unnecessary and untrue insults about her career history and her website, obviously with a flavor of venom. That is when I decided to step in and point out your obvious bias toward this person -- maybe she stepped on your asana or something? Took the last bowl of sour cereal? I don't know much about how to use wikipedia talk, so may not be using it perfectly properly, but I don't think you are using it properly either. Jaime234 18:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have gone ahead and edited this article. My basic intent was to make it more encyclopedic in tone. I removed material that I thought might be very difficult to verify. Basically I believe that she is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. I think that the emmy information might be possible to reinstate if the category and date information is supplied. Personally, I just think that the article needs a lot more specific details. I also chose to delete the information about here ashram background as that is basically very hard to verify without contacting the ashram. My vote now is Keep.TheRingess 01:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, I'm just not seeing anything to push her past WP:BIO. Inner Earth 13:48, 30 June 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.