Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/David R. Hawkins

Lone voice, speaks out.... The man is notable! Regardless of his points of view, English Wiki. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then prove it with the reliable sources. BTW, this is the English Wikipedia, far from the only English wiki. Lady  of  Shalott  01:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, what is deemed "reliable" is more of what is in question here, not the man himself or what can be deemed "verifiable", :

This has been brought up before in a variety of wiki forums:
 * http://www.hayhouse.com/authorbio.php?id=76 Previous bio from publishing company, before Dr. Hawkins started Veritas
 * http://www.hayhouse.com/details.php?id=458 Spanish Edition still published through Hay House Publishing.
 * http://www.beyondtheordinary.net/drhawkins.shtml
 * http://miraclesandinspiration.com/humanconsciousness.html
 * http://de.spiritualwiki.org/Hawkins/Teachings
 * http://peswiki.com/index.php/Review:David_R._Hawkins:Power_vs_Force
 * http://consciousnessproject.org/about-david-r-hawkins/biographical-summary/ (community supported-not connected to David Hawkins or Veritas Pubishing)
 * http://netnotes.altcpualumni.org/?page_id=27
 * http://www.spiritual-experiences.com/spiritual-quotes/quote.php?teacher=38
 * http://www.spiritualteachers.org/david_hawkins.htm
 * Article about Hawkins and the same issue in 2007 when individuals attempted to locate him on Wikipedia http://www.energygrid.com/spirit/2007/09ap-davidhawkins.html

Again these are points and information that have been brought up before. You even have well-known contemporaries of his such as Wayne Dyer saying Hawkin's book 'was the most important work he had read in a decade', but English Wikipedia 'consensus' says the man is not notable and a snake-oil peddler, as one person here put it. It should be on Wikipedia for people to have access to a balanced view of what the man promotes, either good or bad. That is exactly what Wiki is for. Let people PROVE IT for themselves, just show them where to look, particularly in this case. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works: the burden is on the person who says he should be included to find reliable sources. You have provided lots of links to wikis, but so what? Where are the links to the reliable sources? Again, this is the English Wikipedia, not "English Wiki". Lady  of  Shalott  01:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, the initial burden may be on one person but the overall is on Wikipedians as a whole and the community, not a burden on "a person" to refute all of the work of various editors; that is not how it works. The sources that have been listed and that were cited through various stages of the article are independent from Dr. Hawkins and had been deemed of reliable origin. The focus here is too much towards perfection and there is no excellence achieved. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I must also point out that "wiki" is a collaborative input web "tool" delivered as an interactive website; of the 10 hastily pulled sites listed above I believe only two are "wikis" shown for content and the rest are non-interactive, non-wiki websites. I would not see that as "a lot of wikis, but so what" kind of contested point. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Inquiry: Does anyone know if the other language wiki's, in particular the German wiki where the David R. Hawkins page exists, follows the same wp:guidelines, as the wiki-English one does? In another words, do all language wiki's follow the same wp:guidelines? Thanks, &mdash;  Jasonasosa  04:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Jason, I can say that I am not aware of all the guidelines of "all" the languages of Wikipedia, so I cannot speak for them, I am sure they vary considerably. I feel I gave my reasons for the need to have the author listed here. People check Wikipedia for such things, particularly with somewhat questionable people like Dr. Hawkins. I feel that he is notable and it was shown. If not even somewhat of a person to be skeptical of should people inquire about him, and I feel that people should be able to access that information in such a forum as Wikipedia. I also felt the sources were valid and verified in this case but that was obviously not the consensus of those involved in AfD. I do still think his article should be listed and I have given my reasons in various discussions, forums and talk pages. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) No, they do not. I believe some get by with very little sourcing required at all. I do not know the standards for the German Wikipedia. Lady  of  Shalott  04:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for the input.  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  05:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So that's a suggested "no" on stab at DVR?? No one want to do this again? Hahaha Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible Source Connections for future Article

 * Posting some content here for future editors to have available that may assist in helping piece this together, if Hawkin's article is eventually restored. Again, one piece at a time it has been shown that the information stated as 'insufficient' but collectively it clearly shows notability:
 * This Video Clip including Hawkins and Chopra, could assist in locating further sources, Hawkins, Chopra and 6 other contemporaries are included in this interview series. Hawkins is around min 1:00 in. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Evidence' (not intended as WP:Reliable) to show his notability among his peers. The cover of the front of the 1995 Edition Power vs Force, From Hay House Publishing with endorsement from Dr. Wayne Dyer regarding the Hawkin's work.
 * I believe this qualifies as a clear and obvious refusal to acknowledge the reality of the situation. The article has been deleted. This page is not intended as a sandbox for one editor who seems to refuse to accept that. I believe that continuing to use this page in this way is very likely a violation of policies and guidelines, and if this continues I will have few choices but to report that, and possibly blank or protect this talk page and possibly the page it is attached to. John Carter (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your continued threats are acknowledged, Carter. I was unaware of a Wikipedia policy against continuing a discussion on an AfD Talk Page as I stated on my User Page. Again, requesting your abrasiveness be kept in check. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say this, because Iconoclast and I have been on neutral ground for less than 24 hours... but this is blatant misuse of this page. It's as as if Hawkins is resurfacing and worse with " 'Evidence' (not intended as WP:Reliable)". Iconoclast, please strike through your material mentioned above or it will be reported as wp:de, WP:REHASH, and believe it or not... a violation of {db-repost}. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  02:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Jason, it's fine and appreciate it. I don't wish to write the article only to give others other information that I had located. I was not aware of violating Wiki Policy in that regard. I will do as you advised to give Carter less reasons to 'hold over me'. Thanks Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Iconoclast for your cooperation.  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  02:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, Jason. I was also not aware that I was technically breaching WP:REHASH in this context, nor that I was arguing reliability here by including information on this talk page. Seems that I am violating something just about on every page just by commenting, lol . Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)