Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Ingerman


 * 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sandra Ingerman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is highly promotional, which is largely a consequence of its reliance on sources that are uncritical. No reliable independent sources are cited which establish the importance of the subject. Guy (Help!) 20:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - seriously, what is this? Nothing in the lede (which looks like a cut-paste from her LinkedIn profile) suggests anything that might make the subject notable. Then the article gives the subject credit for "popularising" soul retrieval, a theory actually popularised by Robert Monroe (which, rightly so, is where soul retrieval redirects). The source for this rather self-aggrandising claim? The subject's own book of course! The rest is just a list of her non-notable books. Obvious promotionalism - can't believe it has survived for 9 years! Stalwart 111  06:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete but not for the slight flavor of promotionalism in the article, that would be fixable and by itself should not be a reason to delete; however, her claim to notability fails. Being the Educational Director for a large, well-known and hence notable foundation might be grounds for notability given adequate coverage, but neither the Foundation for Shamanic Studies nor the Society for Shamanic Practitioners are in that league. Her relationship to Soul retrieval which is not in the lead, is a concept that seems to be derived from the work of Robert Monroe, and may not be a notable concept as suggested by JzG here.  To end, the article is not highly promotional. --Bejnar (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2014 (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.