Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dolores Cannon

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dolores Cannon[edit]

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

A WP:VANITY page that seems to fail WP:BIO and WP:FRINGE. I do not believe the subject is notable enough for a devoted article. jps (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of her books are self-published and in my opinion, it is likely that she is either a delusional crank or a con artist. The bottom line is that she's a non-notable crank. Yes, she has occasionally been mentioned briefly in "news of the weird" coverage, but I could find no significant coverage of her in reliable, independent sources. All of the sources but one are controlled by her. I never thought I would see somebody try to use the Weekly World News as a reliable source, but now I have. That rag was the poster child of unreliable sources. As I used to tell my sons in the grocery store checkout line, "if that newspaper ever printed anything true, it was by accident". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood your position. I think calling anyone a "con artist", without a source, might be a violation of WP:BLP in particular libel. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't agree that my "either/or" statement is libelous, I have added qualifying language in italics in response to your concern, and apologize for the harshness of my original comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article from The Edge magazine provides a decent introduction of what she is about. She is somewhere between science, fiction and spirituality. Spiritual belief, and fiction, are not WP:FRINGE topics, but science claims would be considered fringe (not sure if she makes science-based claims?). Her books are self-published but they sell a lot,[1] LibraryThing stat holdings are pretty high in aggregate (and have very high user review ratings). She appears to have a following. In the community of people who believe in spiritual channeling she is considered an expert on the prophecies of Nostradamus.[2] She has a lot of mentions on Google Books. The current article does have problems of undo weight but it's not clear to me yet if this topic is non-notable. We might need some spirituality experts to weigh in. I left a notice at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spirituality#Article_for_Deletion:_Dolores_Cannon. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere do I see her asserting that her work is fiction, and she makes a wide variety of claims that fall in the domain of science. You brought forth an interview of her in a fringe magazine, which clearly doesn't establish notability. I have no problem with well referenced NPOV articles about truly notable fringe theory advocates. I am unconvinced at this time that she meets that threshold. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religion also makes claims that fall in the domain of science (God created the earth). I guess the question is context. Are her claims made within the context of spirituality, or is she challenging with a new scientific paradigm. My sense is she is primarily a spiritualist. I don't think she publishes pseudo-science papers, rail against "mainstream science", typical of fringe. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Changing to Weak delete based on valid points made by Eppstein and others.-AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)How is The Edge a fringe magazine? I went to the link provided by Green Cardamom. The magazine covers holistic living, was founded in 1992 as a print edition, and added an online edition in 1998. Its circulation is 40,000, according to the magazine site. Also, Cannon started a publishing company, Ozark Mountain Publishing, in 1992 and releases books besides her own, according to the link provided in the Wikipedia article. Does that make her self-published? It does not appear so. I am inclined to agree with Green Cardamom that the topics she writes about are not WP:FRINGE. The page appears to pass WP:GNG. –AuthorAuthor (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Spiritualism" can mean a lot of things. When someone is claiming, as is Cannon, to be able to communicate with the mind-entities of the past through the controversial (to be charitable) practice of past life regression, there is an obvious pseudoscientific claim here. One might argue that as part of a wider movement or religion, the woman might be notable. Indeed, WP:FRINGE covers that eventuality. However, we don't have any evidence that Cannon is actually notable beyond her acolytes. If she was a religious figure, we would hope to find independent sources from the religion to establish her notability. The Edge, in this case, is just a promotional magazine for like-minded New Age religionists. If you can find an independent source who is not trying to promote Cannon's claims, then I'd be more sympathetic to this argument. But, as it is, The Edge does not seem to me to be sufficiently independent to establish her notability. jps (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - She appeared in a full-length documentary, Fastwalkers,[3] in 2007, directed by Anthony T. Miles. She does not appear to have had anything to do with production. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This documentary is just a UFO conspiracy theory jaunt. It isn't properly independent in the sense that it is just promoting and parroting Cannon's claims essentially on her behalf. jps (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you look at the list of cast members, you will see that a dozen people were interviewed for the documentary. It does not appear to be "essentially on her behalf." According to info via the film links, she is one of several in the film. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I watched the segments of the film that had her in it. As I suspected, it's basically an advertisement for her beliefs. No analysis, contextualization, or anything more than primary source documentation. The film is just a platform for her and a dozen other UFO conspiracy theory types. Not only is it not an independent source, the documentary can't be a reliable source for anything but the opinions of the interviewees and evidence, perhaps, that such ideas exist and are connected by the filmmaker, though I note the film itself doesn't appear to be notable enough for inclusion at Wikipedia, for example. In short, if Cannon were notable, this film would be a good primary source document to use to show what she says, but the film itself does not speak to her notability at all as far as WP:FRINGE goes. jps (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Someone who claims to have spoken to Nostradamus via hypnotism-induced time-travel [4] and who has predicted space-alien contacts [5] definitely falls under WP:FRINGE, and needs non-credulous sources to balance the woo per WP:NPOV. I searched both Google news archive and Google books for such sources and didn't find them. So I don't see how we can possibly have an adequately neutral article about the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks independent quality coverage: not notable enough. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.