Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Carroll

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 KEEP (no consensus). This is a tricky one. I've read through this discussion many times, and the conclusion that I have come to is that a failure to meet GNG has probably been established (although it could be that the foreign language references would make a difference, if time were spent on reviewing them). However, I don't feel that a consensus has been reached on the issue of WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR. Arguments have been put forward and so have some references. Many people arguing for deletion seem to have relied purely on a failure to meet GNG. Those that have addressed ANYBIO and AUTHOR, have argued against the reliability of the references, but I don't feel there is clear consensus there. For that reason I think that to keep is the correct decision for now. TigerShark (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Lee Carroll

Lee Carroll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Utterly non-notable occultist (self-published) article based on primary sources; NY Times article is about indigo children, not about subject. Orange Mike | Talk 03:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Orange Mike is entirely correct. The New York Times is a great source for many things here, but a passing mention there as the author of a book on a fringe topic is not significant coverage, and is worthless to establish notability. This is a really bad article that should be deleted forthwith. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Article should be improved but the author of books that have sold over a million copies is surely notable. http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/221319.Lee_Carroll Lumos3 (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:GNG for notability requirements. Significant coverage in reliable sources has not been shown. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence that he is notable by our criteria. I'll add that Goodreads is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. I don't see evidence for the number of books sold, and as he publishes his books himself, I doubt that there can be any independent source for this. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • His recent books have been published by Hay House. It's Hay House who claim the sales figures. They are now saying over 500,000, still a sizable figure and surely notable. See http://www.hayhouse.com/authorbio.php?id=142. Lumos3 (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
    • An author's publisher is not a reliable source; they notoriously want to portray their authors as being much more important than they really are. Mere self-reported sales figures do not constitute notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't deny that publishers will try to promote their properties, but to accuse a publisher of deliberately falsifying data that could easily be checked elsewhere and without providing any supporting evidence is unfair and we have to take the publisher's statement in good faith. If we take the statement by the publisher as true then clearly Carroll is notable based on sales and global interest in his work. Lumos3 (talk) 11:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Could you be more specific about what bit of our notability criteria he meets by this? You have to argue on the basis of our criteria for notability, remember. Dougweller (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
          • I'll take the courage to provide the following quotes from WP:BIO: "The topic of an article should be notable, that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". And from WP:ANYBIO: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable, third-party source that demonstrates this? - SudoGhost 07:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe yes. Check the updated article and also read the discussion below. -- Nazar (talk) 09:32, 12

December 2011 (UTC)

Can you actually show some rather than just saying they exist? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*******And the footnote to that at WP:BIO says " Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer." Can you demonstrate that? I don't see anywhere that states the number of books sold meets that or any other criteria. Dougweller (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • • I'd also add that Interwiki shows quite some interest to the topic in other language communities. -- Nazar (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep I don't think Lee Carroll can be defined as 'not notable enough'. He's one of the most famous channelers of the New Age since 1990s. His books have been translated into multiple languages. He is the one who is primarily responsible for the "Kryon phenomenon", and in the last decade there have been at least several notable attempts to channel Kryon by other mediums and channelers. Lee Carroll is a key figure in today's New Age metaphysics and his works are amongst the primary references for anyone interested in the phenomenon of Modern Western channeling. I admit, much of the above is based on my personal evaluation, but I hope to be able to provide more reliable links for this. I just came to this article today with some thoughts about adding a bit of info about the Kryon phenomenon, its worldwide effect and the key philosophical concepts introduced. And here I come and see that the article is nominated for deletion... That is so sad... -- Nazar (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. If one cuts through the natural implied-bullshit associated with the field, it does seem that he is sufficiently notable. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Based on what? - SudoGhost 07:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There's an interview with Lee Carroll at Edge Magazine here http://edgemagazine.net/2011/08/kryon/ . He's not main stream but he is notable in new age / channeling circles with large sales and a world wide following. Lumos3 (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

One interview in a fringe magazine doesn't sound like it would satisfy notability requirements. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Looking through the article and online, I'm not seeing anything particularly notable, nor do I see anything that satisfies WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. - SudoGhost 07:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Not notable. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There also seems to have been quite a bit of criticism of Lee Carroll's French tours in popular French mass-media. His presentations and lectures had been spoken about as a type of sectarian activity. See Lee_Carroll#Criticism. -- Nazar (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not seeing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to demonstrate notability by Wikipedia standards (WP:GNG). The only reliable source I see in the article (NYT) just has a single quote from him, which is far short of significant coverage. First Light (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

How about this independent investigation by journalist David Thomas entitled Tuning In: A Journalist, 6 Trance Channelers and Messages from the Other Side into trance channelling confirms Carroll's book sales and notability, ISBN 1571746463. No Amazon 'Look Inside ' but extracts are here. Book review. There is no question of Carroll's prominence in the field of Channelling. I appreciate that the whole business of channelling is distasteful to many Wikipedia editors who are natural sceptics. But we must not let this bias our reporting the world as we find it not how we'd like it to be. Lumos3 (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a reliable source here . An article by at the Institute of Neotic Sciences testifies that Carroll is "well known" .Neotic Science Journal , Issue Fourteen, September 2011. Lumos3 (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the above. There's also a bunch of references I provided in the Criticism section to the widely recognized mainstream French press and TV channels, which criticized Lee Carroll and his Kryon movement. This way, the overview of the subject is neutral and includes different independent points of view. There's no question whatsoever about the notability of the article subject. I'd also add that most of the opinions expressed here so far seem severely biased towards advancing a skeptic POV and eliminating information which is not in accordance with the personal views of certain editors. -- Nazar (talk) 09:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

How can you say "there's no question about the notability of the article subject?" when there is still no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The NYT article that merely mentions Carroll is not "significant coverage". The "Neotic (sic) Sciences" website is not a reliable source. If you think 'science' and 'journal' make it a Scientific Journal, and therefore a Reliable Source, you are quite wrong. That is not a peer-reviewed or academic journal, and doesn't meet WP:RS. I don't read French, so I can't speak to those sources, but I'm rather dubious after seeing the neo-tic journal being provided as the breakthrough reliable source. (I'm not a skeptic, and am not interested in your accusations of bad faith - I am interested in seeing some truly reliable sources and significant coverage). First Light (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In plain words, an author who sold over 1 million books and has a worldwide following in a few dozens of countries, as well as thousands of people coming to listen to his presentations, is notable enough by definition. Surely, in a field like channeling one can not expect a coverage in academic and other mainstream sources to the extent and in the way one would see such a coverage for a mainstream author of same magnitude. The New Age community, especially its more occult wing, has always had its own special sphere and sub-culture, which is mostly lively on the dedicated forums and web-sites (which, btw, give thousands of references to Kryon and Lee Carroll). However, since here on Wikipedia we are not counting these as reliable sources, we should at least give credit to the social, cultural and ideological phenomenon of that magnitude as such. And for that we've got quite enough formally satisfactory references (which are, of course, just a very tiny fraction relative to the volume of references it has in the New Age sources). Thus, keeping in mind the obvious social magnitude of the phenomenon, it's quite ridiculous to try and diminish it through trying to close one's eyes even to those sources valid by the Wiki standards. I really don't see why David Thomas' book would not be a reliable source. Also, saying "I don't read French, ... but I'm rather dubious..." is quite a bad excuse, because I clearly stated above that these sources are the mainstream French press, belonging to the top mass-media in their respective language environment. This can be easily checked by following the Wiki links I provided in the Criticism section. Also, let me remind this once more, these are the criticism links, which have recognized the phenomenon in spite of their own generally negative and skeptic attitude towards it. So, if the French mass media with millions of total weekly circulation has recognized the significance of the Kryon (Lee Carroll) phenomenon by criticizing it in many ways over many years, why shouldn't Wikipedia do so? -- Nazar (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There's also at least half a dozen independent published authors discussing Kryon's messages (originally channeled by Lee Carroll) in a few dozens of publications to be found in German National Library Catalog. Would that not be a sign of notability??? Added the link to article... -- Nazar (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

And the WorldCat has got even more authors and books on the subject here. -- Nazar (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Your original research does not provide notability, significant coverage in reliable secondary sources does as per WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

While IRWolfie-s (talk) comments in this discussion may be of some Rhetoric value, they do not seem to help much in light of improving the article in question. If the Exclusionist priorities are to be followed to the utmost, I agree, much of the article in question could be cut based on its mediocre or poor encyclopedic quality. However, I do not believe even the Exclusionist philosophy justifies the deletion in our case. Sufficient notability has been provided, shown both by repeated mass media attention over many years, and by independent publications on the subject. -- Nazar (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please provide the list of significant coverage in reliable sources that you allude to, cheers. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's a few quotes from the article to start with:

• "A chapter is dedicated to Lee Carroll and his Kryon channelings in a book by David Thomas entitled "Tuning In: A Journalist, 6 Trance Channelers and Messages from the Other Side", Publisher: Charlottesville, VA : Hampton Roads Pub. Co., ©2011. An online preview of the book is available from WorldCat and Google Books. Extracts are in this review."
• "A rich collection of mainstream Frech press references to articles criticizing Kryon movement and full texts of these articles is available from Prevensectes Collection" -- please help yourself to the extracts from the press. I agree, for an excellent quality Wiki-article one would have to include encyclopedic summaries of the French media articles in question. That is one of the things which may be improved here over the time...
• I'll not go into enumerating all the publications on the subject of Kryon's messages by authors other than Lee Carroll, but they surely are a sign of significant attention to the ideas (channelings) expressed in his books. (Some authors are mentioned in the article.) Extracts and summaries from these sources are another good point to direct attention to in light of improving the article in question...

Hope this is enough for the meanwhile. -- Nazar (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

A book published by a fringe publisher and a collection of newspaper trimmings which mostly don't seem to mention leo carroll (the site was a disaster to navigate) doesn't seem a great argument for notability. Whether Leo Carroll has friends who also published fringe books is irrelevant. What is relevant is significant coverage of Leo Carroll in reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see much sense in arguing the above. "It's in the eyes of the beholder". And if Wikipedia is to be made a strictly traditional mainstream information based encyclopedia, then I'd agree that the existence of this article might be challenged more or less, depending on the views and philosophies preached by the editors involved. Mine is one of meta:Inclusionism. So, my "fringe" opinion here remains as Keep. Cheers :) -- Nazar (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"and a collection of newspaper trimmings which mostly don't seem to mention leo carroll" is just showing you having not studied these trimmings enough. A newspaper article about a person / subject does not need to mention that person / subject every second or third word. Not even every second or third sentence. It's enough that the article is about the subject. And all the articles I referenced are about Lee Carroll, his Kryon Movement and the Indigo Children in specific connection to the Kryon's messages and Carroll's books and presentations. Cheers again. :) -- Nazar (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

And your ideas about the "Fringe Publishers" are really something interesting. Do we now decide whether to consider a published book as a source for an article based on the publisher's choice of topics to publish? Isn't that going a bit too far? (Well, actually, yes, I understand your point, that if it was published e.g. in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, or some other mainstream highly ranked source, it would have had more weight; but, well, still, these are the books published by independent persons on the subject of our article... For me, it qualifies :) ) -- Nazar (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes the notability of a publisher has a bearing on its due weight; it is self evident that a book from a notable publisher has a greater due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete the article is gibberish. "Carroll says channeled information can not be adequately translated into the notions of the time-space conditioned reality" - and neither can this garbage. Pure bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Needs improvement but this is not grounds for deletion. Lumos3 (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

For those who haven't managed to notice that info amongst the French refs I provided, here I remind that Kryon's movement and Lee Carroll's books have been mentioned in several published official notes by CIAOSN (Centre d'information et d'avis sur les organisations sectaires nuisibles, eng. Centre for Information and Advice on Harmful Sectarian Organizations) -- http://www.ciaosn.be/ , which was created following the recommendation of the Royal Commission (House of Representatives, session 1996-1997) of Belgium. Unless the article is deleted, someone might want to add that to the criticism section :) -- Nazar (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete There appears to be no significant coverage in reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

These discussions may be useful in the context: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Kryon and Talk:Kryon. Thx. -- Nazar (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

One more curiosity which comes to my mind. Yesterday I was asked to fill out a meta:Research:Wikipedia Editors Survey November 2011 here on Wikipedia. Amongst others, it addressed the issue of why the number of active editors has been decreasing over the last years. I'd say that the above discussion and the attitude demonstrated here by experienced Wiki Editors is a good answer to this question. Wikipedia is gradually becoming more and more a closed club dominated by skeptics, where independent information from alternative sources is forced out, which process is increasingly backed up by subtle changes in official policies (which changes are mostly made under the influence of the same utter skeptics, who dominate the experienced and active users community). Compare the discussion at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Kryon and the current one. In spite of the current article being in much better state and representing a broader coverage of the subject, the dominating attitude of the experienced editors is that it should be deleted (not improved or modified). Much of the disdainful personal attitude is involved, and the policies are selectively used to push out any information that is not in accordance with the views of that skeptic majority. The facts which could formally be used to support the article in light of the existing policies are mostly neglected or given subjectively minor importance. No attempts are made to save the information and work done on the subject over the years...

If someone here knows a more relevant discussion where this info would be of value too, please link it there. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't selective use of policy, it's the general notability guideline WP:GNG. Linking to a vote from 6 years ago is irrelevant and also most of the keep votes were based on search engine hits (WP:GOOGLEHITS) which isn't a valid metric for notability. I dislike the insinuation that I have been uncivil. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

More evidence of Carroll's notably. There's an interview with Lee Carroll on Global Talk radio Beyond reality program here http://www.globaltalkradio.com/streamer.php?show=beyondreality/beyondreality_2003jan04.mp3 Lumos3 (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

A fringe radio program on Global Talk Radio which allows people to, for instance, host their own talk radio show to promote their book? [1]. How does that meet our criteria? Dougweller (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Another quick quotation about Lee Carroll: "Lee started San Diego's first recording studio and quickly attracted national commercial work. Twenty four years later Lee finds himself with 39 Clio nominations (three first place statues), and numerous other distinctions including a studio Grammy nomination and client honors for work his studio did for Walt Disney World in Florida." He was also on TV at least a few times. Good Morning America and some other appearances. -- Nazar (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable, third-party source that can verify this? - SudoGhost 00:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of significant coverage from reliable, notable sources. Passing mention in a NYT article is trivial, and I don't think anything else listed counts. The list of foreign-language references gives me a momentary pause since I cannot immediately judge their quality, but it seems odd that an American New Age figure would only be in foreign language sources. I did check World Cat on some titles - some do not meet the book notability minimum threshold standards, while others seem to. Meeting that doesn't guarantee notability, but not meeting it on any book would almost certainly guarantee its non-notable. If there's ever any ambiguity it's up to the article to demonstrate notability, and it hasn't done it. I see no indication any sources exist that could be added to demonstrate notability. Of course if in the future some can be provided I wouldn't object to an article being recreated, provided it's majorly cleaned up.DreamGuy (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "it seems odd that an American New Age figure would only be in foreign language sources" -- There's nothing odd about it. Since he's not mainstream, the mainstream American sources are not much concerned about him. But the French ones got concerned when they started fighting him as a sect (which the American did not do)...
  • "some do not meet the book notability minimum threshold standards, while others seem to. Meeting that doesn't guarantee notability, but not meeting it on any book would almost certainly guarantee its non-notable. ... it's up to the article to demonstrate notability" -- does that mean that in an article which has sufficient reliable sources, if a few other sources are not sufficiently reliable, then it can be deleted? If that's your point, then I'd be quite doubtful about the validity of this logic. There are always plenty of not reliable and not notable (by Wiki standards) references about any subject (including those subjects which are the foundation of any enclyclopaedic knowledge). That is not grounds for considering the deletion of such articles.
  • Generally, summarizing this discussion, I'd say, that excellent quality and broad range notability by Wikipedia standards has not been provided. But one would also not expect such a coverage and range from an article about a New Age writer (though one of the famous ones in his field) -- he's not mainstream. However, sufficient sources and references have been provided to present the minimum required notability of the phenomenon. Thanks...

-- Nazar (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The french sources are most likely the newspaper trimmings listed here [2]. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The link above is for general reference only. The original French Media (Press and TV) references are given in the article. They refer to the paper publications and specific TV programs, which were published (or broadcasted) on specific dates and under specific publication numbers in the top rated mainstream French media. These publications satisfy the Wikipedia notability and reliable source criteria 100%. Above in this discussion is also a reference to official Belgian governmental organization dealing with sectarian movements, which satisfies the notability and reliability requirements too...

I'd also like to add, that these references are provided mostly to comply with formal Wikipedia criteria for notability and reliability. And while they do constitute an integral part of Lee Carroll's coverage, I'd personally say that much more valuable from encyclopaedic point of view are his own publications (which sold over million copies) and the numerous other books published by independent authors on the subject of Kryon's messages. These publications constitute the bulk of information on the philosophical phenomenon we're dealing with here. Thanks... -- Nazar (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I also think that we're dealing with an unconventional case here, since a phenomenon which is not a mainstream one has become popular enough to be of interest for millions of persons. The lack of very broad coverage in sources of excellent quality by Wikipedia standards is due to the unconventional nature of the phenomenon. I insist that the formal notability minimum requirements have been provided above. But we should also use common sense to judge the actual notability of this phenomenon, which is in fact much higher than what those strictly formally satisfactory sources provide for. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The article's subject is not a phenomenon, it is a person. Notability from one is not inherited by the other. - SudoGhost 20:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes. But this is Rhetorics too. There was a Kryon article before, which was aimed at providing information about the Kryon's messages and related phenomenon in first place (and Lee Carroll as the original 'ideological father' of this phenomenon as part of the information). There was a deletion discussion about that article, and it was decided that this information should be merged with Lee Carroll article. Now you want to delete the Lee Carroll article, claiming that it has nothing to do with Kryon phenomenon (which is not true by definition, as Lee Carroll is Kryon's messages' original author). Seems like a vicious circle... I'd suggest a bit more openness and positive attitude, and a bit less strict formal "chasing of the dog's tail". The article is needed for a phenomenon of this scale. Lee Carroll is the main carrier of the phenomenon, if you like. -- Nazar (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want my personal opinion, the Kryon article should not had been deleted in first place, but at that time there was no one to provide sufficient references to defy the deletion request. I think by now, that we have references to so many independent books dealing with Kryon's messages, as well as all the French references I provided above for this article (and these French references always mention Lee Carroll in connection with the Kryon movement), there's actually enough reliable sources for Kryon article to be restored as well. -- Nazar (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Considering the number of people who have told you that you were wrong about Lee Carroll and you have ignored, I guess we shouldn't be surprised that now you think the other article should never have been deleted either. Rest assured, if you create it again it will get deleted again. The people here have told you the sources are inadequate, so ignoring that won't mean you get to have your way. DreamGuy (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2011 (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.