Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet(2nd nomination)


 * 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 all, including the inveterate link spamming. ~ trialsanderrors 10:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet


This is a vanity article of a non-notable author who is part of a "walled garden of cruft". This author's name was previously made into a Category which was subsequently deleted, see Articles for deletion/Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet Also nominating:
 * The New Way, Volumes 1 & 2
 * The New Way, Volume 3
 * The Gnostic Circle
 * The Magical Carousel
 * Gnostic circle
 * Trivikrama

Reference should also be made to AfD discussions on:
 * Matrimandir Action Committee (see Articles for deletion/Matrimandir Action Committee)
 * The New Way (see Articles for deletion/The New Way)
 * Aeon Center for Cosmology (see Articles for deletion/Aeon Center for Cosmology)
 * Aeon Group (see Articles for deletion/Aeon Group)

OfficeGirl 18:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep for the main article. A "Norelli-Bachelet" search on Amazon reveals that she has published several books and, more significantly, she is quoted by several other authors. Her 670 Google hits aren't many but appear diversified. She seems to be well-established in her small niche within Integral yoga. The critical remarks about her in The Mother rather enhance her case. Stammer 19:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all:
 * Although a published author, Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO's standard of "published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". I don't think that mere quotes (of which we have no sources) qualify as reviews, and another Wikipedia article can hardly be a reliable source for notability purposes.
 * Her books are non-notable by extension. Since the articles are mostly (copyvio?) tables of content, if Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet is kept, they should be merged into her article.
 * Trivikrama may be an encyclopedic subject and worth an article at some point, but right now it's just primary sources (that don't belong on Wikipedia) mixed with WP:OR and nonnotable Norelli-Bachelet esotericism.
 * Of course, the articles also are poorly sourced, consist practically only of WP:POV esoteric mumbo-jumbo, do not bother to make a claim to notability (in words that those of us still in this sphere can understand), and are generally best characterised as pieces of advertising. Sandstein 20:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete all per nom and vanispam-cruft or whatever it's called --AW 21:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all the articles on the books per WP:OR; keep article on the author. The references given are all self-references, and thus fail WP:RS. Aside from books which have no Amazon ranking at all, I have yet to see modern books by an author generally this far below the bar of notability. Most of this lot have rankings waaaay below 1millionth, which gives me no doubt of their notability (or lack thereof). Nevertheless, I have reservations about deleting the article on the author, as her books do have some minimal reference value witness the copies in the Library of Congress, among other places. Ohconfucius 05:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the LOC collect basically everything published in the US? Sandstein 05:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Sandstein. The LOC is useful for checking for hoaxes. If we cannot find a book there, we can assume it is not published in the US. But the mere existence of the book means very little. Leibniz 13:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete all per Sandstein. --Pjacobi 19:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per Sandstein. Leibniz 12:52, 18 November 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.