Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Moulton Howe


 * 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 no consensus to delete both. Merge possible. W.marsh 21:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Linda Moulton Howe
I have also nominated the related article


 * Delete Linda's article. Being a guest on a AM radio show fails WP:BIO. --Arbusto 00:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Earthfiles
This individual and website do not appear to be notable, there is also a woeful lack of verification. There may be a case for an article on the movie, although a google search shows very few related hits, most of them from poor sources. Jefffire 10:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral but the article is in dire need of strong references. For instance, I can find no trace of that Emmy for "A Strange Harvest". In particular, no trace of it from the Emmys' search engine. Of course you'll find tons of Ghits talking about the Emmy award-winning Ms. Howe but no one seems to be able to say what that Emmy was... I'm tempted to think this might be one of those things that becomes true once it's been repeated often enough. Nonetheless I'm also inclined to think that Ms. Howe is notable in her nutcase of a field. Pascal.Tesson 14:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I think I will change my opinion to reluctant keep. But it really badly needs some references. In particular, unverified info (about the Emmys for instance) should be deleted with extreme prejudice. It's really bad practice for Wikipedia to repeat and give credit to an unverified fact that only is cited by her fans. Pascal.Tesson 19:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my bad, Jefffire originally put it in and it was deleted somewhere along the line and I restored it thinking that Jefffire wouldn't have mentioned it without a WP:RS to back it up. Apparently she has three regional emmies for writting and editing, but I don't have a WP:V for them so I'm not going ot be the user to bring them up. perfectblue 13:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I vote that LMH be cleaned up and expanded, rather than deleted. She is more 'notorious' than 'notable' and is big among people who believe 'in that kind of thing' and follow 'that kind of site' even if she does lack credibility in some areas (hey, even non-credibly people can have wiki articles, sanity isn't a prerequisite for inclusion).


 * LMH deserves a biography at the very least due to her prolific spewings of things written and filmed.


 * perfectblue 17:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Linda Moulton Howe and merge any important Earthfiles stuff there. I'm not a fan – I think she's naive and sensationalistic – but she's very well-known among enthusiasts of the paranormal because of her frequent appearances on Coast to Coast AM and her books. There are plenty of Lexis-Nexis and Factiva results for her, too. It appears that her documentary won a regional Emmy for sound, which wouldn't show up on the Emmy databse (but I think she's notable enough without it). Zagalejo 23:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete NN. Having a book listed at amazon.com is not difficult, they sell self-published material. Being a guest on an AM radio show does not meet WP:BIO. --Arbusto 00:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Coast to Coast AM is very widley broadcast (apparently "America's most listened to late night talk show"), and she's appeared on the show dozens of times. She's just as notable as Richard C. Hoagland, a show regular, and she gets more Google hits. As for her books and other works, they are carried at many libraries, including some university libraries.   She's basically the "queen" of cattle mutilation and crop circle studies, and she's actually pretty influential in the paranormal community. Zagalejo 01:09, 30 September 2006 (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.