Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Brennan


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Barbara Brennan

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This particular article, aside from being an obvious soapbox advertisement for her "schools" seems to me to fail WP:BIO. Is this woman famous outside of the fringe-elements who deign to worship any person with a collegiate degree that validate their beliefs? I don't think so. Aside from a number of fansites and references blatantly promoting this woman's business, I can find no third-party verification that she has any notability whatsoever. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Personally I think this sort of stuff is a load of nonsense, but that doesn't justify its deletion. If you look at other areas of the WIkipedia (I am currently trying to get some sort of NPOV on the various Ayn Rand pages and that is a real nightmare, including some of the so called notable people who have wikipedia pages) its not bad!   I suggest making sure its neutral, makes no claims and promotes no specific services but otherwise keep it in place.  -- Snowded   TALK  08:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep What any of us may think of this person's claims and beliefs, or those of her supporters, is wholly irrelevant to whether an article on her should be retained.  Her most obvious verifiable claim to notability is that her books have been published in a variety of languages internationally, as can be seen at Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.de (in translation), Amazon.fr (in translation), Amazon.jp (in translation), and elsewhere.  As supporting evidence, articles on her already exist in German, Russian and French Wikipedias.  The related information in the article, which gives more information on her background and claims, is intended to be wholly objective, and makes clear, for instance, that some of her claimed qualifications are from non-accredited institutions.  Although the article refers to her business interests, it does so in a neutral way and is in no sense "an advertisement for her "schools"" as is claimed. Any changes to that position to reflect a non-neutral point of view should be reverted or improved, but deletion of the whole article - apparently because the editor proposing deletion (who incidentally is subject to a RFA elsewhere) rejects the views of the article subject - is unacceptable.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Another WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. --Blowdart | talk 08:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Blowdart - this AFD smacks of bias. Brennan is about as high profile as they get in the energetic healing field.  I've lost count of the times I've heard of "Hands of Light" described as a classic reference. K2709 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep; snowded and to some extent ghmyrtle have good points. Truth has nothing to do with biographical inclusion. Ironholds (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Well sourced article clearly showing notability in a particular field. Raitchison (talk) 15:59, 31 December 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.