Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dolores Cannon (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. While several of the keep !votes are not based in Wikipedia policy, there appears to be a consensus since the final relist that sufficient coverage does exist to meet WP:GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 14:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dolores Cannon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Dolores Cannon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in reliable sources, and thus fails WP:BASIC. As Cullen328 pointed out in a deletion discussion for this article a decade ago, the subject is a "non-notable crank". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please see the Authority control databases at the bottom of her article. In additional to international sources relating to her, there is also: the Library of Congress link brings up 22 resources (1931-2014), WorldCat has "481 Results" (likely duplicates therein) I think she's notable. — Maile (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just to be clear Maile66, all the results and resources at the Library of Congress and WorldCat are her own self-published books on reincarnation, prophecies, UFOs, and other WP:FRINGE topics (e.g. Conversations with Nostradamus, The search for hidden sacred knowledge, and Between death & life : conversations with a spirit. Check the plot summaries if you're not convinced on how bonkers she is. ) This is not enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR, which is presumably what you were referring to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Being "bonkers" is not means for deletion. She is an author with a significant following who has written 16 books. Her work documents her personal experiences in hypnotherapy, which still gains consistent attention even after her death. She's frequently referenced by other authors and figures within spiritual communities. Yeah, some of her works are pretty speculative and controversial, but she's still a significant person nonetheless. 170.103.65.126 (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Her books are all self-published and none of the attention/frequent references provided thus far meet the requirements outlined at WP:GNG. You are free to provide ones which do. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The impact and relevance of an author should not be dismissed solely based on whether they are self-published or traditionally published. The value of her (controversial) contribution lies in the content and influence of her work within spiritual communities. Ultimately, her contributions have played a role in ongoing dialogue and practices within the hypnotherapy movement. For these very reasons she shouldn't be deleted 2600:1004:B192:1F2A:F0D2:B902:344E:2F03 (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not a source. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: I have created a publication list for the article. At least two of her books were published by a British firm and three by American West Publishers. As for the rest, self-published as we think of it today is not exactly the situation here. She established a New Age publishing company that eventually worked with more than 50 authors from around the world and still exists today. Her books published through this company were reviewed in trade publications, the NYT, and the Washington Post. Her books were issued in many languages and distributed around the world. Most are still in print today and were reissued as ebooks and audiobooks. I even found an article where she was invited to attend the American Library Association conference because of her new book. Although these books are not sources, I do think we should consider their impact regardless of the publisher. Rublamb (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
      Rublamb (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Didn't we just have a conversation about deletion for her at the end of December 2023 which resulted in keep? DaffodilOcean (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we did on December 21. Thanks for bringing that up. Looks like someone is going to keep listing this, until they get the result they want. I'm striking myself above, because I don't want to get caught in that loop. That, and the fact, that I'm not real thrilled that the nominator has to tell me how to interpret the sources I listed. — Maile (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT Fails NAUTHOR. This was deleted years ago and should not have been re-created. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article just needs a more citations and improvement flag at top from WP:CLEANUPTAG. Just because no editor swiftly stepped forward to improve the article is no reason to delete it. Wikipedia:Deletion policy says: If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. The above list of potential sources appears on the article's talk page for any editor to use to improve the article. 5Q5|✉ 12:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Mentions" are not significant coverage, 5Q5. Let's take a look at your first seven sources (I cannot access the newspapers.com sources. perhaps they contain the necessary coverage?)
Source Text on D. Cannon Comments
https://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/media/dolores-cannon-10471/ "Dolores Cannon directed the Ozark Mountain UFO Conference from 2013 until her death in 2014. She is shown here in 2013." Consisting of two sentences and an image, this clearly does not meet SIGCOV.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7894e/past-life-regression-therapy-mind-zoom "I reached out to Teja Priyadarshini, a certified past life regression therapy practitioner from India, who uses a technique called Quantum Healing Hypnosis Therapy developed by Dolores Cannon, a self-proclaimed hypnotist, past life regressionist and… UFO investigator." Consisting of half a sentence clearly dismissing D. Cannon as WP:FRINGE, this is clearly not in-depth, significant coverage.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/16/books/review/tracy-k-smith-interview.html "Dolores Cannon, who refined a method of regressive hypnotherapy by which subjects felt able to encounter their own past lives, has been an enormous consolation and inspiration to me during times of anxiety and 21st-century world-fear." One sentence from the poet Tracy K. Smith on what she likes to read in her spare time. SIGCOV? No.
https://www.theportugalnews.com/news/2023-08-25/what-is-quantum-healing/80827 Now, there are various ways in which to practice quantum healing. One of these is the hypnosis technique, created in the 1968 by author and hypnotist Dolores Cannon. “QHHT© achieves the deepest level of hypnosis possible, the Somnambulistic level of trance,” according to the official QHHT© (Quantum Healing Hypnosis Technique) website. “By creating a safe and effective method that bypasses the chatter of the conscious mind and focuses on obtaining unlimited information in the somnambulistic state, Dolores Cannon discovered that time travel is possible at any time or place to relive anyone’s past lives.” Cannon also claims that this technique allows for access to our unconscious minds, what she calls The Subconscious, or The SC, which is “that greater part of ourselves that is always connected to The Source, or God, and has unlimited knowledge and an unlimited ability to heal the physical body.” Dolores Cannon passed away in 2014, seemingly not having used the aforementioned unlimited ability to heal the physical body on herself, but you can still learn the basics of what she made up for just $997. Two paragraphs, most of which is quotes to ridicule a technique the author explicitly states is made up, not SIGCOV of Cannon.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/cheryl-been-meditating-reading-aliens-24354598 "And she also said that the one book that "changed her life" is New Earth by Dolores Cannon. Dolores Cannon is a UFO investigator, hypnotist and past-life regressionist who believes alien spirits have been sent to Earth to help humanity ascend to the 'New Earth'." Two sentences (not SIGCOV) from an interview with Cheryl (singer) on what she does in her spare time, published in a marginally reliable newspaper specializing in tabloid journalism.
https://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/news/local-news/conference-puts-focus-on-hypnosis-alternative-healing He will offer a group regression workshop based on the work of Dolores Cannon, an American hypnotherapist and psychic researcher . Half a sentence, not SIGCOV.
https://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/meet-the-woman-behind-the-popular-awakening-starseeds-series-radhaa-nilia Another author whose books influenced me is Dolores Cannon. Her book, The Three Waves of Volunteers and New Earth. I highly recommend both of these timeless books. Three sentences from an interview with Radhaa Nilia, a self-proclaimed "visionary leader, expert in the Sacred Feminine and Archetypes, Goddess Activator, Publishing Priestess, etc. Not reliable or SIGCOV.
  • Delete I spent a while looking, but didn't find the sort of reliable non-fringe discussion of her that we would need to build an article here. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:AUTHOR is the notability guideline to be used here not WP:NBASIC and she passes one or more of the tests. 5Q5|✉ 12:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added links to multiple books available on archive.org that present Cannon's work. She is covered in these books in length ranging from one paragraph to several pages (see article for page numbers). Hence, within these fields, even if they are WP:FRINGE, her work is cited in books. I have also edited her page a little to clarify that the books are her representation by others as I feel this is more neutral. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is dangerous territory to erase and eliminate speech. Dolores Cannon inspired millions of people for good, and whether you beleive her methods or not, we should always err on the side of free expression vs. silencing ideas. This is how humanity evolves. In fact, many of her quantaum regression theories are generating interest in their grounding in science. Remember many of the secrets of the universe can be interpreted through the microcosm. We do not want to live in an Orwellian world. KEEP ~~ Danieltate (talk) 16:25:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)— Danieltate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    ^This 100%. She's made significant influence within several fields, and maintains relevance even 10 years after her passing. Erasing her influence and voice, especially her theories based on whether someone agrees with them personally, creates a dangerous precedent that leads to censorship. The commentors supporting the deletion of her page are supporting restriction of the open exchange of information. Just because someone doesn't believe her theories to be credible, doesnt erase her accomplishments and influence 170.103.65.126 (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)— 170.103.65.126 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep: I have worked on this for a bit and have added sources. Source #11 is a scholarly paper that discusses her role as a leading figure in the past life regression and alien conspiracy movements. Source #2 is another new source that has a Japanese television crew interviewing her. Source #22 is a long review of her book in the Washington Post. Source #21 is a shorter review in the New York Times. Some of the other book sources have at least half a page on her. I have found mentions of her in other many New Age books and she also trained many current practitioners (some sources to back this have been added to the article). Seems to be an important figure and there are now adequate secondary sources to prove her notability. Rublamb (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Source #11 is an editorial from a graduate student; it has not been peer reviewed, so I wouldn't call it a scholarly paper. #22 and #21 are reviews by the same author, and I don't believe two reviews make a notable author, even in the New York Times. Even with these sources, that leaves a lot of information in the article from unreliable references, and if all that is taken out, we would be left with an article about an author with 2 book reviews making fun of her and a disparaging editorial using her as an example of a gateway to conspiracy theories. Reconrabbit 21:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A scholarly paper does not have to be peer-reviewed, nor is peer review required for a reliable Wikipedia source. Regardless, the source in question provides significant coverage by a scholar and and is published by a university which works for notablity this instance. It does not matter that the two book reviews, written two years apart, are by the same author. In fact, it is fairly normal for a critic to specialize in a certain type of books such as the New Age genre. And, reviews in The New York Time and The Washington Post are a big deal when determining the importance of an author and their book because these are major US newspapers that and very difficult to get into if published through a small press. Other reliable references to consider include many newspaper articles. I have not looked at every book or author that citated by others from the Internet Archive, but note that some are published by respectable presses. There may be a high reliance on primary sources but that does not preclude the article from meeting notability in this instance because other sources exist to prove notability. Rublamb (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: After looking at the book sources, here are the ones that probably meet significant and reliable coverage: #1 is published by a reliable press, its author has a LH.D and is considered one of the original researchers in the field of near-death. #16 was published by Piatkus which is an imprint of Little, Brown and its author has an article in Wikipedia. #18 is a press that specializes in new age themes and the author has a Ph.D.; Cannon is discussed throughout this book. Rublamb (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Of the four tests for notability at WP:AUTHOR she passes the first two. Only one is required.
  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; 5Q5|✉ 13:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the significant new technique in question is Quantum Healing Hypnosis (which is variously named Quantitative Healing Hypnosis in the article as well, though I can't find it called that anywhere else), then there would need to be a lot more documentation than there is on the page now regarding it. Many of the other articles on hypnotists have references from sources that do more than promote hypnotherapy and similar treatments. Reconrabbit 21:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say her biggest claim to fame is as an originator of past life regression hypnotherapy, regardless of the trademarked name she used for her training program. I did not add more details on her techniques because everything I found on this topic is a complex layer of pseudo-science that lacks analysis to provide a balanced perspective. A link to the article on past life regression seems the best option as it has some analysis of the topic. Her secondary importance is as a conveyor of alien and other conspiracy theories that persist today in the New Age realm. This is pretty well detailed through the scholarly article and the topics of her books and presentations. Although she did write many books, I don't believe she needs to meet WP:AUTHOR because the sources exist for general biographical notability. That is, there are multiple reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage. Rublamb (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because:

Is about an American author that has written 17 books.

Is about an American hypnotherapist. a profession that in many American states does not required licensing for its practice.

Is about one of the most well know past life regression therapist in the 20th century.

I also consider that the other 3 articles about Dolores Cannon in the Dutch Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia and Chinese Wikipedia should be preserved. --Zchemic (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pd. This is the 3rd times the article is trying to be deleted for the same reason... What? Is this keep going to continue until the 97th time when nobody knows that the article is obsessively being trying to be deleted again?

  • Delete. While I have heard of her, ironically through a late friend who was a spiritualist, there is scant evidence by was of SIGCOV that she actually meets our standards, which are well established. I can't anything useful. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be easy (but incorrect) to delete this article because the subject's views are fringe. But what matters is does she meet WP:AUTHOR with WP:SIGCOV and after reading all of the comments, that is still not clear to me. I would caution those who are "supporters" that launching into conspiracy theories does not help your argument to Keep this article, what matters is notability by Wikipedia standards which is demonstrated by independent, secondary sources. At any given time, there are hundreds of these AFD discussions occurring so this is not a matter of singling out this particular article. Presenting cogent arguments for the outcome you are seeking and discussing them is the way decisions are made on this project.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: I am a bit concerned about the lack of neutrality in comments on both sides for the AfD. We are not discussing whether you believe in this person's theories or whether or not the content of the article is "useful" to you. Rather, we should be analyzing the sources to see if there is significant coverage of this individual. The article and its sources have been significantly expanded since this AfD started. As discussed above, I have identified more than six sources that provide significant coverage from reliable sources. At least one of these sources has more information that is not yet included in the article. It would be helpful to get responses to those specific sources. I can create a table if that would be helpful.Rublamb (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I added the IMDb template to the article in External links, not many but all Self credits. One of them was an appearance on the A&E Networks TV series Biography, the episode about Nostradamus. I note also that in the Washington Post article on her, which is already referenced in the article, her name appears 21 times. I feel she does meet WP:AUTHOR. The article just needs Template:Unbalanced or Template:Undue_weight at top to encourage some additional balanced content. Maybe she is discussed in Skeptical Inquirer but buried in issues somewhere. Either of these templates will encourage searching. As I wrote above, Wikipedia:Deletion policy is to not delete if editing can solve the problem. 5Q5|✉ 14:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    5Q5: Finally found and added some critical review of her work and theories. I also replaced or removed some of the primary sources. Still needs work but should be more balanced now. Rublamb (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm circling back here, and I think there's just about enough to meet GNG. I don't think her work is significant enough to meet NAUTHOR, however. We have: 2 or 3 reviews of Conversations with Nostradamus in mainstream press (1, 2, and (maybe) 3, depending on how you consider Heard writing both the NYTimes and WaPo piece); this separate article about her; and at least this research note and bits and pieces in some of the less-fringe books cited. The article has been ref-bombed somewhat to oblivion, and some of the comments are above are not overly helpful, but imv when cutting through all that there's some substance here, too. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability established by book reviews in major publications, appearances on network television, and the Encyclopedia of Arkansas Gamaliel (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep due to her passing GNG and her books being reviewed. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – due to the multiple obituaries on WP:RELIABLE cites. TLA (talk) 05:36, 16 January 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dolores_Cannon_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1196141107"