Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita Moorjani


 * 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. --Core desat 05:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Anita Moorjani

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I do not believe this person to be sufficiently notable to need a Wikipedia article. FisherQueen (Talk) 10:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 11:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Just as dying is not criteria for notability, neither is not dying. I can see her becoming notable, but a couple of websites documenting her recovery isn't enough. I don't like the way the article is written, either- not sure what it is, it reads too much like a charity leaflet, or a poster trying to make you join a church. J Milburn 11:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have put notifications on the talk pages of the three major contributors to the article. I would have thought it a good idea to approach these relatively new editors with some kind of explanation, and so did it myself. Shenme 11:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Personally, I feel that her story is noteworthy, and worthy of being here. She is not trying to sell anything or ask anyone to join anything.  Merely provide information to a phenomena that is already written about on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorko (talk • contribs) 14:11, 3 April 2007  — Doctorko (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: I am not trying to sell anything or ask anyone to join anything, I am merely trying to provide information about a subject that is already written about on Wikipedia (by expanding articles on Wikipedia). Why do I not get an article? In short, your argument makes no sense. The stories are not about her, but about her near-death experience- you could argue that they were, in fact, about her doctors. Perhaps she deserves a mention in a larger article somewhere, but unless she is notable beyond her experience (perhaps through her consultant work) then this article should go. It is also rather POVish. Phrases like "truly an inspirational" and "most sought after motivational speakers" just aren't helping this article's case. J Milburn 12:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment:This lady is fast becoming very noteworthy in this part of Asia. (And we in Asia have started to rely on Wikipedia more and more). Perhaps if we can edit her story to meet your standards, you would consider leaving it in? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morganjeffrey (talk • contribs) 14:39, 3 April 2007 — Morganjeffrey (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment:I notice the wikipedia entry for Anita Moorjani coming up near the top on the google search. It looks like there is a lot of demand for information on her, as her google hits have also gone up dramatically just over the last few months. It would be great if she could be kept in wikipedia, perhaps with just a bit of editing of the article.  She has been on the radio in Hong Kong several times, she has come out in many press publications throughout Asia, as well as many internet news articles. It would sure be appreciated from us on this side of the planet! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Indigo lady (talk • contribs) 14:50, 3 April 2007  — Indigo lady (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If you add links to the internet news articles to the article, that would help. Recury 13:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, and any possibly salvageable content be merged into Near-death experience (examples of famous NDEs? I dunno...). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator's reasoning. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize for being sucha novice in using wikipedia. But we have added the links to the story showing the various publications where Anita has appeared. She is still being interviewed by more publications as we speak. Sorry for not adding my signature previously. Indigo lady 14:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC) — Indigo lady (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep, the sources added demonstrate notability. Recury 14:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not believe her experience merits having an article. Many people every day recover from seemingly insurmountable odds. Her case is no different and thus no more notable. My other problem lies with how the article is written. It reads like an e-mail chain letter. Anything worth while should be merged into Near death experience.-- Cyrus Andiron   t/c 15:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, but it needs sterilizing and rebuilding from the ground up. There is an interesting story there (not so much the not dying - I've not died, and I don't have a Wikipedia entry - but the weird career she seems to be building out of it), and she does have the multiple non-trivial etc etc. However, at the moment this article seems to boil down to spam for her website, with a window-dressing of sources to stop it being db'd. And having so many possible sockpuppets involved isn't doing the 'keep' case any favours - obviously, they may well all be genuine but it seems odd that so many people with an interest in the same subject would all create accounts on the same day. -  irides centi   (talk to me!)  15:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The "sources" attempt establish some borderline notability, but I do have to point out that they are all scans of articles posted on her personal website.  Given the newness of the editors involved I will assume good faith and guess that they don't see a problem with this, and for future reference should note that referring to the article itself, preferably with a link to the website if the material is online, is what should be done, and posting information from your own website appears suspect.  That said, I do not believe the coverage constitutes enough notability to warrant inclusion.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The references appear to be promotional material originating with the individual. The article is very promotional in tone. Many people have nearly died but recivered, so that claim in itself is not all ta=hat remarkable, and her claims of mystic revelations are not verifiable. Edison 16:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and the fact that the three main contributors all seem to be SPAs, with the original creator being a likely relative. If she turns up worthy in the future, then somebody not directly involved writes the article. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 17:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep based on meeting the formal requirements.  I recall some of the recent discussions on sexual fetishes, where the postulated impossibility was used as an arguement. I supported them on the basis that the belief in them or even thought of them was notable, and I guess the same holds here. My reaction would be to  delete as commercial spam if not hoax, as she charges HK$150 to hear her speak, which seems incompatible with her claims of newly-attained knowledge of relative insignificance of the material world. But we already have the established justification of "notable hoax" so I suppose we can have the justification of "notable spam." Yes, I did add a comment to the article talk page, and the bare  fact to the article DGG 23:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * COMMENT Hello. I just want to comment on the HK$150. That's only about US$20. The money goes to cover costs of the venue, and the promos to announce the event.  Anita doesn't get paid for speaking.  Hong Kong is a very expensive city.  $150 is actually very little. Just thought I'd let you know. THANKS! Morganjeffrey 02:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC) — Morganjeffrey (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * COMMENT If I may just add one more thing - Anita has now been approached by the BBC who are considering making a documentary on her case. Just to let you know something about her - she is very generous with her time and information (while not actually promoting anything).  She speaks freely when invited, and has been speaking at Rotary Clubs, various women's groups, etc. Her experience seems to have created a lot of (ongoing) public interest. One suggestion - perhaps if we could be guided as to how to edit the article to meet wikipedia standards, would you consider keeping it? Just a thought. Whichever way, we leave the decision of deletion to your professional editing capabilities. Thanks.Leelawong 04:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC) — Leelawong (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I apologize for excessive POV comments here; what I added to the page itself was neutral. DGG 03:39, 5 April 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.