Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juliana Beck


 * 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. Those arguing "keep" never offered any substantive case counter to those arguing to delete. &mdash; Scientizzle 13:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Juliana Beck

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * Delete. Non-notable yoga teacher, fails WP:ANYBIO. Citations refer to other people, not the subject of the article. Can find no significant presence on Google etc. Contested prod. WWGB (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:N. Article makes a dubious claim of notability, which is not backed up by sources within the article.  Independent good faith searches have failed to uncover significant coverage in reliable independent sources (or, really, any coverage whatsoever). - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —WWGB (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. She sounds like a wonderful lady and it's sad that she's passed away, but there's nothing in the article or on Google Books, Scholar or News when searching for  that would indicate her Notability. Google Web for same terms brings up this page on tributes.com that bears more than a passing resemblance to the article under discussion, and seems a more suitable home for this material. Qwfp (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as not failing WP:N. Benedetto Croce emphasized that all history is contemporary history, since it is either written by our contemporaries or simply read contemporarily by us today. Croce stressed that this meant that we bring our own limitations, prejudices and preferences with our views of events in the past. In that sense, all history bears the limitations of our praises of the past, our distortions of it, and our errors and omissions concerning it.


 * It also means that nothing is famous, notable or historic until we either write about it or read about it.


 * The current definition of “notable” that the entry on Juliana Beck faces unfortunately confuses “notable” with what is the rage today with electronic media, namely “celebrity,” which invariably means “famous,” or as it eventually mutates over time in popular culture to mistakenly pass as “history.”


 * Juliana Beck’s study of and teaching of yoga was “notable” in that it eschewed celebrity because she, and many others in various parts of the broad spectrum of counter-culture, disagreed with the premise of commercialization that is at the root of a concept as “notable,” as it is currently interpreted by editors of the Wikipedia. The Wiki, is, as many of my undergraduate and graduate students happen to be, bright, eager, but limited in conceptualization, method and scope. (We'll leave the issues of glaring errors out of this discussion, as it is beyond the current subject.) If people in the past would have applied the narrow strictures of the Wiki’s definition of “notable,” we would find that much of what has been written, discussed and passed on as history over the centuries would simply not be. And we would be the poorer and more ignorant because of it.


 * It is ironic that the Wiki whose original intent was to be free and open to all may become as limiting as that which it purports to replace. Alas, what would Diderot say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco polo 52 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What Diderot said was "There are things I can't force. I must adjust. There are times when the greatest change needed is a change of my viewpoint." Perhaps you need to adjust your viewpoint to accept Wikipedia community consensus. WWGB (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as not failing WP:N. per fact.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Which "fact" would that be? Nothing is referenced ... WWGB (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Yet another biography with no tenable claim to notability and no real sources, but having "keep" votes based on Special pleading. This trend is becoming more worrisome, especially as more seem to be closed as keeps, e.g. this one from a week or two ago. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete simply no evidence of the independent coverage in reliable sources needed to build an article from. Nuttah (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. Nsk92 (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2010 (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.