Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drunvalo Melchizedek


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Drunvalo Melchizedek

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Bringing this to AfD as I have strong doubts about the notability of the subject. In ten pages of ghits, I saw nothing that looked like an RS, and the article itself doesn't appear to have any either. I am not commenting about the subject himself or his 'teachings'. Those may be the key to the future or total cobblers. The question to me is, 'Is there notability?'. Peridon (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment You've also nommed it for CSD under G11; which is it to be? Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 10:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. That was Jeraphine Gryphon's CSD nom. Peridon (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies, my mistake. Comment struck. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 11:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. Peridon (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Sufficient sources for notability, see this (Swedish online magazine), this (legal documents), this (newspaper article on the detrimental effects of his teaching) and others. Given that the article's currently up for speedy I see little point in adding these at the present time; if the page is kept, we can look at adding them. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 10:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The Swedish one is actually Slovenian, and doesn't read like a discussion of, or review of, the subject. It looks like a regurgitation of his beliefs. I'm not sure about the status of court actions in terms of establishing notability as they are rather more involved than independent. The third one is part of something from elsewhere (no, I don't mean aliens...) - the original publication might be of more interest and could be an RS. Peridon (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not convinced about notability either way (though I don't think legal papers increase notability?), but I still think it qualifies for the speedy. I deleted some material beforehand ("his books are more experiential, and extend beyond the experience of most of the population and may require suspension of judgment until the reader has sought to test what Drunvalo teaches through practice in their own life"), but it's still promotion only and the references go only to his website and books. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm always bumping into this name, and see his books on shelves in very non-esoteric shops. Robert Mayer devotes a chapter to him in "The Intrigue of the Possible".  According to Amazon sales ranks, his current book is...
 * no 1 in Books > Mind, Body & Spirit > Earth Based Religions > Native American
 * no 4 in Books > History > North America > Native Americans
 * no 6 in Books > Mind, Body & Spirit > Thought & Practice > Spiritualism
 * which may or may not be notable generally, but I suspect it's close. K2709 (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * comment I removed the speedy; if he actually s notable, which I very much doubt, the article would be edited to remove promotionalism. FWIW, I call attention to "Melchizedek completed most of a Basic degree in Physics and Mathematics before switching to a fine arts degree which he was awarded in 1970." (sourced  to a his preface to his own book)  "His fine arts degree was from the University of California at Berkeley, obtained without finishing the course due to clerical errors by the university"   DGG' ( talk ) 20:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (Redacted) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. 4 self-published books, with no available reviews or critical comment or discussion, and nothing else but a platform for his non-notable views. I am willing to fix a mess when the subject is notable enough, but even if this is kept by some weird chance, there isn't enough material to be worth fixing. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B  music  ian  03:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete For several reasons: Most importantly, the topic has not received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Feel free to disregard the following reasons, as the first is sufficient. This article is complete WP:BOLLOCKS. Also, my wife read it and says that this article is WP:CLAPTRAP and promotional. Also, we ought to have especially stringent notability standards for any person who says that "Melchizedek" is their surname.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Self-promotion, lack of 3rd party notability. - Frankie1969 (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I edited it a bit. Above assertions of being "self-published" and not having received coverage are false. There's a ton of coverage if you just do a simple Google Books search (well, like 80% of the results are self-published books from iUniverse and AuthorHouse and similar 'publishers' but there's enough results from legit and more-or-less legit publishers, I listed four of them in the Further reading section). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Weiser Books is not an independent source as they have published at least one of his books and have an interest in promoting his works. I do not consider Weiser Books, Llewellyn Worldwide or books published by David Hatcher Childress to be reliable sources because they do not have a "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and instead are questionable sources with "a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." The coverage in the book published by Duke University Press consists of a couple of passing mentions without the level of detail to amount to significant coverage.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  05:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if you disregard the Weiser one, I'm 99% sure I can find another one from Google Books to replace that (looks like I'm the only who bothered to make an actual search before !voting...). Again, there's plenty of non-self-published books in the search that make reference to him, I just didn't list them all. (And I'm fairly good at weeding out self-published ones though besides Lulu there are tons of other self-publishers, I just google every publisher I hadn't heard of before.) Coverage in published sources (yes, Llewellyn is a real publisher, like it or not) establishes notability, which was the issue here. I haven't used these sources as references to any wild claims, so how "reliable" you think they are is not relevant. And I don't think being written about on three pages qualifies as a "passing mention", you're now deliberately exaggerating to have your way. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I added a ref to an extensive interview on a Slovenian daily. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm a New Ager. Been one for years. I suppose you could call me an 'expert' in this category. Like him or not, Drunvalo is a rockstar in my community which, while comparatively small, certainly includes hundreds of thousands if not millions worldwide. Any simple search on Google, YouTube and Facebook would quickly and easily confirm this fact. If you think he's controversial, feel welcome to include that in the article and cite your references.Stephen.israel — Stephen.israel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The Google link appears to be identical to the Facebook one. Peridon (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Stephen.israel, I am sorry to say that your claimed expertise means nothing in this debate, and neither does your characterization of the subject as a "rockstar". It also doesn't matter whether anyone likes or dislikes the subject. What matters here is coverage in reliable sources. Facebook is a website consisting of user-submitted content and is therefore useless to establish notability on Wikipedia. If and only if notability is established through other means, then the subject's own Facebook page can be used in a limited way as a primary source. YouTube is similar, and amateur videos or videos associated with the subject are useless to establish notability. A simple Google search does not establish notability, as the vast majority of Google hits on pretty much any topic are not reliable sources. What we need is significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. I emphasize "independent" because websites, books and videos produced by the subject or organizations affiliated with the subject do not establish notability on Wikipedia.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I've just been looking through the 100 most spiritually influential (or something like it) list. Our subject comes in at 54, the Dalai Lama at number 1 (with which I won't disagree), a certain Joseph Ratzinger (like the subject here, better known by a pseudonym) at 45, and Erich von Däniken at 41. Yes, well... I would like to know more about the compilation of this list, which appears to emanate from a London bookshop who specialise in this area of 'literature'. Peridon (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with this article to delete, needs more inputs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reachmyke (talk • contribs) 05:39, 27 March 2012 (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.