Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silvia Hartmann


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Silvia Hartmann

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'd come across her a while ago when someone requested that we write an article on a book she'd been writing live. I didn't see where her book was particularly noteworthy and the bigger issue with her is that she doesn't seem to have really been the focus of enough attention to warrant an article herself. The only thing she's really received attention from in RS is the book she wrote live and other than a handful of articles that mention her starting the project and even fewer that mention her completing it, there's nothing out there to show notability for her. The book project falls under WP:ONEEVENT as far as I'm concerned and it's not that major of an event to where she'd pass on that front. Someone came and re-wrote the article to where it reads more like a puff piece for her than an actual article, but it still isn't enough. I'd written up a more neutral version of it, but the previous editor that removed the PROD essentially reverted it to the previous edition and added more puffery to it in an attempt to save it. There just isn't enough out there to show notability for her. She comes close, but in the end falls shy of passing WP:AUTHOR or any other notability guidelines. Also, while this isn't exactly a reason to delete in and of itself, I noticed that this article has had a long-running issue with people coming on that are affiliated with Hartmann or her works in some way and using this as a place to promote her and her work. Now as far as her EmoTrance stuff goes, she very technically didn't create it but expanded on someone else's work. I can't see where she's mentioned that heavy enough to where she'd merit a keep based upon that work either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a rundown of the sources:


 * 1) The Mind Body Bible: Your Personalised Prescription for Total Health: The problem here is that this isn't really what I'd consider a RS. I can't verify what her mention is and given that this is in the back of the book, I'm guessing that this is a mention as a list of various things for someone to try as far as alternative medicine goes. That's not what I'd call a mention or reference that'd give notability.
 * 2) This book isn't considered a RS and besides, she's listed with various others in a business listing style section of various places to try out. Not something that would show notability.
 * 3) This is a word document that goes over various things, but I don't see where this is even close to being a RS. I have no real way of being able to verify who wrote this, where it was published, if anyone edited it, or if it was peer reviewed.
 * 4) This THE article is relatively usable, but this is pretty much the only remotely RS about her work with EmoTrance. We need more than one source to show that EmoTrance is really noteworthy.
 * 5) Primary source, not usable as far as RS goes.
 * 6) This is a page from the group she created, which would be another primary source.
 * 7) Oceans of Energy and Adventures in EFT: These are both books she wrote, which would be considered primary.
 * 8) Another primary source.
 * 9) Not just primary, but also a link to where you can purchase the book, making it a primary merchant source. This is pretty much the epitome of what would be an inappropriate source to link to in any instance.
 * 10) Another primary source. Even if someone else wrote it, it's still published on her organization's website and is primary.
 * 11) I can't really verify the reliability of this source, especially since it seems to read more like a press release than an actual article. I can't verify if this is one of those places that lets anyone write an article (which I suspect it is) or one with a set amount of editors or what. I'm leaning heavily towards this being unreliable, as the article for this suggests that anyone can submit an article.
 * 12) This is the same THE article that was linked to above.
 * 13) Energy EFT: Another primary reference to one of her books.
 * 14) Another non-RS. This is a random website when it comes down to it.
 * 15), , , , Here's where we start getting to the ones that are usable, but ultimately these all say the same thing: "Hey, this person is doing something interesting". They're good in getting started on notability but ultimately this all falls under WP:ONEEVENT. Some of the mentions are insanely brief (as in the case with the New Yorker and Gizmodo links) and almost all of them say the same thing. When it comes to the Chicago Tribune mention, the article isn't really about her, but focuses heavily on her towards the end. The big problem here is that they're all reporting on this as a lark and this isn't in-depth enough to warrant a keep on this alone.
 * 16) Out of the sources about the book, this one is completely unusable as a RS.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete -- The whole thing looks extremely fringe to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  08:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - because having had my own look, I find myself in almost total agreement with the nom's extensive analysis. Stalwart 111  09:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete; low notability, and WP:FRINGE problems. The thorough nomination says it all - thanks, Tokyogirl79. bobrayner (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2013 (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.