Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine breese


 * 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.Jauerbackdude?/dude. 05:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Christine breese

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

Author, meditation teacher and lecturer written up by someone with an obvious COI. Little evidence of notability. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC) delete no notability. Moontowandi (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. You have to dig real deep in the article to find an assertion of notability that makes it immune to speedy A7, and it isn't enough to make the article a keeper. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 23:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Article talks a lot about the subject but does not prove the subject's notability. Artene50 (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(SpiritBeing (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing) Hello, Actually, the subject is notable with published and verifiable book on amazon.com that has been out since 1997. If wikipedia aims that the subject have verifiable notability concerning books, there's the proof for that. As for the subject's accomplishments and notability, also, see all the pages on Google which point to the subject's name. 148,000 links are found on the subject's name. RHaworth believes that there is no notability, but there is plenty and it is enough to make the article a keeper, as you will see below. Becuase RHaworth has never heard of this person, it is simply an opinion that there is no notability, not fact. The subject actually is well known in her particular venue, which you will also see below. The subject has been in the press, written many articles that have been published in spiritual magazines and newsletters, established large organizations serving thousands of people and is well known in her field.

I'm not sure what COI is, but if it is about me as the writer of the article feeling moved to write about a spiritual teacher who is blatantly missing from wikipedia's coffers, this is only the first of many that I had planned to write about. I was busy getting ready to upload artilces about other spiritual teachers that are well known in their fields when I found myself caught up in this deletion war with a couple people (who do not represent ALL of wikipedia and have not played fair, deleting my other article about the Universal Church of Metaphysics and also all the conversations therewith before I can finish typing responses or proof of verification and notability) who have a particular greivance about the topics I would like to write about. So my work has been disrupted and interrupted unreasonably by individuals who my have a personal vendetta against these types of subjects and articles. I believe I have proof beyond the shadow of a doubt as to the notability of this subject and that it has been targeted unfairly by a couple people who are trying to take down anything and everything I write that is in my field of interest.

The subject is listed at various Guru Ratings pages and other Spiritual Teacher sites. Saro's Guru Rating Service where you will find this teacher listed, and 3 Fold Sun where you will also find this teacher listed, and the fact that this teacher is listed all over the internet on hundreds of sites except wikipedia. These sites are where I am finding these teachers who I feel should be written about in Wikipedia.

I do not know these teachers personally, despite what RHawthorn is insinuating, and I do not work for them. However, I have a special interest in spiritual teachers, books and teachings and I have checked them out, looked at their sites, and I do feel that I resonate with their teachings and even though my first article about one of them may have been a little too long and had too many adjectives, I feel that I should not be the reason one or two people have a vendetta in wikipedia against having Christine Breese or any of these teachers deleted from wikipedia just because my first article was a little too long and I am new to the politics of wikipedia.

Proof that the subject is a published author and writer: (If you allow me enough time instead of immediately deleting this article, I will post all these article links in the article about this teacher, and every link I have presented from here on out, if you like.)

Articles written by Christine Breese in magazines not affiliated with her or her organizations she runs:

1) An Article published in Sentient Times a very large magazine on the west coast of California. This magazine is not produced by Christine Breese or any organization she is affiliated with.

2) Here is yet another article written by Christine Breese in a the Open Exchange magazine that is very well known and sizable on the west coast of California and is not affiliated with any organization she works with. 3) Yet another magazine called Kula Magazine where the subject has no authority or governance over the organization that runs this magazine.

4) here is another article in the Kula Magazine by this author all the way back to the Hurricane Katrina fiasco.

5) There are many other articles submitted to many magazines and published that are simply not online, including Isis Scrolls, The Ray, Psychic Times, Dreams, and many others that are not online. Since I am a purveyor of these types of magazines, I have come across this person's name a lot and I have felt it is time to check this teacher out, and once I decided that I liked what this teacher had to say, I felt it important to let wikipedia readers know as well. There are many spiritual teachers I would like to introduce to wikipedia.

The subject's book has been reviewed at many places, but here are a couple examples, just scroll down and you will see it at http://www.smallbusinesses.com/reviews4.htm, here's another at http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R1C6Y3B4EEKSID and there are many more reviews about the book, but I believe that I have proven the point already with the notability of her book.

To see a listing of the book at Amazon.com, and also listed at Holistic Page, as well as Fields Books, Word Power Books, Gealina Online, Barnes And Noble Books, Powell's Books, ABD Sellers, Scribbly Gum Books, Sedona Journal Of Emergence, Insight Books, MSN Shopping, Alternatives Central, Spirit Wings, and this list just goes on and on and on for pages and pages and pages in Google Search for this book. It would just be ridiculous to list all the links on the internet to Christine Breese and her book. I do believe this proves that her and her book have notability.

The subject has been a guest on radio and TV shows, including Dave Alan's Nighthawk Series, and Baby Boomers Of Today or if you can't find the link there, go to Voice America and scroll down to the episode 3/4/08 - Baby Boomers Of Today Guest Christine Breese. If you would like to see a link to one of the TV shows she has been on in at a Station that is listed in your wikipedia at WTTV, go to http://youtube.com/watch?v=2h3ftUE2Vg0 if you would like to see a clip of the video.

Breese has also been to expos and presented many workshops, here is a link press release for one of them at http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200804/1208239619.html She has presented workshops at the New Life Expo see workshop listings at 4-4:50 p.m. Saturday Room 102D: “Use Your Heart Instead of Your Head!” with Christine Breese and Sunday at 2-2:50 p.m. Room 102F: “Manifesting Simplified & Surrender to Divine Will” with Christine Breese. She has also presented at Conscious Life Expo in Los Angelos and her lecture listing is at this url on their site. She is also scheduled to speak at all these expos again next year, and she is scheduled to speak at the upcoming New Life Expo in New York City. She has also facilitated retreats at both Mount Madonna Retreat Center, Breitenbush Hot Springs, listing for the retreat is at http://www.merchantcircle.com/blogs/University.of.Metaphyiscal.Sciences.800-521-6382/2007/12/October-22-2007-Breitenbush-Hot-Springs-Retreat-/54597, Tree Of Life Tree Of Life in San Diego, and Harbin Hot Springs the listing is in many places, here is one at http://technorati.com/blogs/christinebreese.wordpress.com

The subject's videos and writings have been translated into Dutch at http://nl.truveo.com/tag/Breese and on youtube, and her videos have been linked to and viewed over 350,000 times through other people's websites who simply chose them by no encouragement from Breese or her organization, they did this of their own accord. If you search for the subject's name you will find massive amounts of links to her videos, her articles, her writings and her church and school. At youtube, this woman's videos have been watched 320,464 times exactly at www.youtube.com/MetaphysicalSiences

This teacher has thousands of students worldwide, and I think that I have proven beyond a doubt the notability through many verifiable outside sources and the fact that this person is a published author, writer, and substantial proof that she is a lecturer and teacher. If the likes of Eckhart Tolle, Gangaji, Adyashanti, Osho, and many other spiritual teachers who are also teaching in this tradition are listed in wikipedia, then this teacher should be listed as well. It is my goal to list several spiritual teachers in this particular tradition who are blatantly missing from wikipedia and should be here if wikipedia is to be an accurate source of information about teachers in this particular spiritual tradition who have earned a degree of recognition and notability in their field.

I have presented my case. I will dig deeper and present more facts and links if you like, but try to set your criticism aside for just one moment and look at the real facts of the situation and let go of opinions about these spiritual teachers just becuase you have never heard of him or her. Many other people have. Just because you haven't doesn't mean that they are not well known in their particular genre.

By the way, do I have to fight this hard every time I present an article to wikipedia? How do you guys ever get anything done on this site if every article posted takes this much work to fight for and just gets deleted as soon as it's written? I had a lot I wanted to contribute to wikipedia, but if it is this big a fight every time something gets posted, I don't see how wikipedia can move forward. I do appreciate you finally not deleting this article before I have had a chance to present my case, although you have deleted the one about the church over and over and over agine before I even had time to explain or have a chance to present my case, so this feels more fair and reasonable. This is more like it. I appreciate the time wikipedia has allowed for a presentation of why I respectfully disagree with the intentions for deletion by a couple of people who don't know anything about this particular person. I hope you can see more clearly why I feel that this person is notable, verifiable, and that my resources are plenty. I have been researching these teachers for a long time and I feel that I should be able to present my findings here. I only hope to make wikipedia more accurate in its reporting of these people who are so well recognized in thier field and yet have no listing here.

This was far more work than I planned on doing to present articles to wikipedia. I had hoped it would be a reasonable and fair process. While the other page I created does not feel treated reasonably and fairly, at least this one didn't get deleted before I could even finish typing my response to the users who wanted deletion. I hope I have educated the users as to the notability of this particular person I have found all over the internet and in spiritual magazines. Now please, don't just keep repeating that this person doesn't have any notability now that I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that this person does have notability. If you have contructive input to offer, I would like to hear it. (SpiritBeing (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing) (SpiritBeing (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing) Strong opposition to deletion the above repetition of notability issues is erroneous, and there are plenty of third party websites, look at the article and the above, they are ignoring the ones that are third party because perhaps they are opposed to religions in this path? There is always opposition to this religion, and I believe they are using notability as an excuse. Look at the article, it has a long list of notability and a long list of third party sites that are verifiable, from press, to TV, to radio to listings. The woman's website ( I checked) has received 400,000 hits last year and the year before, and so far it has 200,000 hits, which means 1 million hits. I think that merits notability, besides all the third party sites provided which is within wikipedia guidelines and standards. At this point, people are only voicing opinions based on the fact that they either don't like this person, this religion, or this spiritual path, and using other issues as excuses, not proving their argument for non-notibility. I beleive notability has been proven beyond a doubt, but non-notability has not been proven, they just keep repeating it wihtout evidence. Strong Keep (SpiritBeing (talk)SpiritBeing)
 * Delete despite all the above the subject does not appear to meet the notability requirements and the lack of reliable 3rd party sourcing within the article creates a number of verifiability problems. 7 GNews hits on the name while searching all dates (none of which are about this person) and 7,830 Ghits (most of which are primary source, directories, wiki mirrors, or blogs) none of which are reliable 3rd party sources. This isn't about presenting cases. Wiki is not a place to "present your findings" which result from original research. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm sure this is a wonderful person and I understand wanting to create an article for her, but right now, it doesn't appear that the article can be properly sourced to reliable third-party sources. SpiritBeing, you might want to look at Your_first_article which gives some great tips on the necessary parts for Wikipedia articles.  Shell    babelfish 08:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: I was asked by SpiritBeing to stick my oar in, but frankly I can't see how this person passes WP:BIO:


 * * Far from 150,000 Google hits, I count 195 unique hits.
 * * Far from having hundreds of thousands of hits, christinebreese.com is the only site of the four listed on her article as having been created by her to break 3,000,000th in Alexa traffic rankings, and only by a nose.
 * * The sources listed on Google are all self-published or obscure: heaps of Youtube videos, her own websites, shilling on Wordpress, numerous blogsites and this article and many Wikimirrors.
 * * Her book listed on Amazon is self-published, and has a sales rank of over #1.3 million.
 * * I am also very unimpressed by the apparent fact that she claims to be a PhD and a Doctor of Divinity, both granted to herself by the "University" she founded, or by the "very large magazines" cited which are, in fact, freebie handouts in area stores, or by the "radio interviews" which she's given which are in fact obscure podcasts.
 * Obviously SpiritBeing feels passionately that this woman is important, but the fundamental WP:BIO criterion remains: "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." If SpiritBeing would care to source any articles in even significant alternate newspapers or widely distributed magazines, TV or radio interviews or mass market books written about her, that would establish notability; claiming vendetta or tossing around wholly unfounded accusations because editors seek out articles which fail to meet the appropriate policies and guidelines does not.   Ravenswing  09:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Most people, including this one, have not been the subject of sufficient independent notice for us to write a good article. - Eldereft (cont.) 10:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, a self granted PhD at a 'University' that she started (that has had it's page deleted) does not seem notable to me.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or Conditional weak keep There are 147,000 google hits. In the field of spirituality she does seem to have some claim to notability and from what I've seen has a resume not too dissimilar to many other articles on here havin published journals etc. But regardless of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. My main concern with the article is that is just really doesn't assert notability or provide any real insight as to why this is a useful encyclopedia article. There are a lot of very dubious claims to notbaility such as the self granted phd and self published works. A lot of the article is irrelevant and unfocused not the mention the article title isn't even capitalized. It needs a great deal of work to bring up to a decent level. As it stands I would delete it. However I would propose allowing the creator to improve it, reference it and write it in an encyclopedic way. If he can't improve it and assert notability of the subject, then I would delete. For me discussing how she has made self made records, self published books and works and obtained a self degree or has appaeared on a low key readio station doesn't do much to explain why she is of note to me.  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 12:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are 147,000 hits for "Christine" + "Breese" - which, of course, returns hits for either one of the two words if you stray off the first page or two. There are only 195 unique hits for "Christine Breese," a far more accurate rendition.    Ravenswing  13:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? Mmm I must admit her claim to notability is a dubious one. I;m sure there are hundreds of thousands of people who are on the same sort of notability level. The question is, is it vital that we have an article on her, does it really do anything to improve the project on a world scale or does it just serve as an advert and a way of getting her name out there?  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 13:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For my part, I'd rather assume good faith and bank on the article's creator not being a shill for Ms. Breese. As far as what I think about the article itself ... (points upward).    Ravenswing 


 * Delete per above.TheRingess (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not finding any mention of her in JSTOR, nor in the main health, religion, or academic abstracts or papers in EBSCO, nor Project Muse academic databases. I do find at least one person on youtube, however, mashing up her video with a humorous critique and 8000 views. So she is notable enough to suffer at the hands of popular opinion. Then a copyright take down request and a video response to the copyright request: in which ultimately Christine responds directly and some humorous dialog occurs in the comments. Rock on everyone. - Owlmonkey (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable - google hits are minor asides there is nothing substantial other than in some blogs. Appears to be zero reporting about her in any RS.  On an aside, article is unreferenced and also reads like WP:SOAP.  Shot info (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable, as a proper g-search shows, using quotation marks "Christine Breese", there are  7800, not 140,000. Of the first 200, not a single one was independent of her--except for Wikipedia and its mirrors. Most of them are her videos or blogs. Nothing substantial at all. DGG (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above -Vritti (talk) 06:10, 17 July 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.