Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Roberts

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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 02:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Roberts[edit]

We don't need both this article and that on Seth Material, as you can see by this article mainly only discussing that subject. Numerous admins and other users have attempted to merge the two articles, only to be reverted by a fan or two of the subject. That so many users have attempted to merge the two articles shows the consensus view, but we can't get it to stick so need the definitive verdict of the wider wiki community. Personally I would merge Seth Material into this one rather than the other way round, but then again she's really not notable for her poems etc, only for the Seth Material, and all the coverage on that which is in this aticle is also in the Seth Material article, so effectively, these are duplicate articles with any other stuff Jane Roberts did not being notable independent of the Seth Material, and if it weren't for that her other works would not be discussed, and are not discussed independently. Sticky Parkin 19:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is a biographical article, the only relevance for deletion is whether or not it fits WP:BIO. As far as I can see, there have been enough articles by secondary sources written about her to justify an article. The other arguments above seem mostly relevant to improving the article, which as a number of editors will say, is not grounds for deletion.TheRingess (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:ONEEVENT. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; ditto ScienceApologist. Simon Dodd (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well sourced, meets WP:BIO. This is the wrong forum to propose a merge per WP:ATD. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Content here usefully contextualises the other article, but would wither after a merge due to reduced obvious relevance to its new home - I'd rather have the option of detecting relevance myself. Also I'm not convinced WP:ONEEVENT applies to decades of work. K2709 (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge other This article needs to be kept, but the Seth Material should be merged into it, rather than vice versa. Looie496 (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article meets WP:BIO so no grounds for deletion. This article and Seth Material are each notable in their own right - but in any case, initiating an AfD is not the correct way to propose a merger. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This was discussed on one talkpage or t'other not so long ago - why are we still here? - Eldereft (cont.) 22:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe because there was no consensus to merge in this discussion or in this AfD. But you have a good point - there is no good reason to have to discuss essentially the same issue for a third time in two months. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Merge As I say below, the Seth Material information is too lengthy to be contained in a biographical article. If the two articles were merged, there would then be attempts by the detractors of these articles to truncate the Seth Material information because it would be too long for the resulting biographical article. Eventually, after I read Roberts' biography (which I haven't done yet, surprisingly), the Jane Roberts article will be filled out with more information about her life. (There are other editors who have read her biography, so I don't know why that hasn't already been done.) At the same time, the text which is redundant with the Seth Material article will be removed.-Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets our criteria for biographies; attempting to apply our policy on people notable for only a single event stretches that idea past breaking point, I think. We do not do merge proposals via AFD for articles sufficient for inclusion on their own, and I oppose attempts to do so. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As an author whose books have sold from 5 to 7 million copies (depending on which source is checked), Jane Roberts is notable without any doubt. She wrote other books that were not about the Seth Material, therefore the two articles cannot be combined without blurring topics that are not the same. Also, other individuals have "channeled" the Seth personality - as reported by reliable sources - that is another point of difference showing that the two topics are not the same. The nominator stated that "Numerous admins and other users have attempted to merge the two articles, only to be reverted by a fan or two of the subject" - that is incorrect. If the supporters of merging were numerous, how could "a fan or two" succeed in stopping the merge? They could not. As Gandalf61 pointed out, there have already been at least two debates about merging or deleting these topics and the results of both were to keep them as separate articles. I am not a fan of Jane Roberts or the Seth Material by the way, though I find them each notable enough for an individual topic page - based on WP:N and WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The massive number of references show she's been discussed in multiple reliable sources thus meeting inclusion criteria. A failed merge discussion or two should not result in a deletion debate. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, having articles about both an author and their work is common practice and encouraged by WP:SS - Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article meets all of the criteria set forth in WP:BIO and that alone should suffice in order to keep the article. It is well-referenced and has a number of reliable sources. Roberts wrote a number of books that were independent of the "Seth Material" and thus if necessary a merge could be debated but AfD is not the place to discuss a merge, and this topc has been exhausted on the talkpages of both articles. Check the archives. NoVomit (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, actually, a merge is a common outcome of the AfD process so this is a place to discuss merging, if people so choose.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep- per morven and jack-a-roe. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Someone asked me where I got the sales figures for the Jane Roberts books - I did a quick Google search and found there are many sources for that info. Here are a few of them: "Moment Point Books "Jane Roberts’ books have sold over 7.5 million copies"; Chapters/Indigo Bookstore chain "sold over 8 million copies and been translated into over a dozen languages"; Kenneth S. Kantzer, Carl Ferdinand Howard Henry,Evangelical Affirmations, page 143, Academie Books, 1990, ISBN 0310595312 "at least 7 million books" ; "bookreview.com "Over 7.5 million of her books have been sold around the world". There are more, that's just a random selection. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question That may be correct, but how do we know that someone didn't pick a random figure and then everyone copied it? dougweller (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Maybe because he numbers are different? 70.186.172.214 (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Over 7.5 million of her books have sold throughout the world" is also printed on the back cover of the biography Speaking of Jane Roberts by journalist Susan M. Watkins, Moment Point Press (2000) ISBN 0966132777. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The likelihood is that the sales figures are higher now. Roberts' books continue to sell, although slowly, because she holds such a prominent position in New Age thinking. They were all reissued by a new publisher in the late 1990's and early 2000's.-Caleb Murdock (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the one who wrote most of the Jane Roberts and Seth Material articles. Originally, the Seth Material article was part of the Jane Roberts article, and it was repeatedly suggested that the Seth Material section be given its own article. The reason was that the Seth Material section, which was not biographical in any way, had become lengthy and was not appropriate for a biographical article. Recently, someone nominated the Seth Material article for deletion and the decision was Speedy Keep. That being the case, it makes no sense to delete her biographical article and keep the article on her work.

In my opinion, Sticky Parkin is acting in bad faith. For whatever reason, he wants to get rid of this entire subject from the encyclopedia, though he knows that there are plenty of editors who want it to stay. Roberts sold millions of books, and the Seth Material is a cornerstone of New Age philosophy, so these topics are entirely notable. If there is information repeated between the two articles, that is the fault of Sticky Parkin and his pals. When they started to attack the Seth Material article a couple months ago, they moved text from Seth Material to Jane Roberts, hoping to thereby have an excuse to delete the Seth Material article altogether. At that time, they openly said that once the Seth Material article was merged back into Jane Roberts, that would give them an excuse to cut down the Seth Material portion. Now that there's been a ruling to keep the Seth Material article, the obvious thing to do is to eliminate the repetitive information from the Jane Roberts article. I myself have deleted the duplicate information, only to have it restored by editors who are intent on merging the articles and truncating the total amount of information. Both articles are routinely attacked by skeptics and atheists who don't like what they say, and I view this attempt to delete Jane Roberts as just another attack. Wikipedia doesn't need self-appointed censors.-Caleb Murdock (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Okay, I'm off the fence. Even leaving aside the accusation of bad faith, the number of Roberts' Seth and non-Seth works would make a single article on her and all her books impossibly large. Keep per WP:SNOW, I am tempted to say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict- reply mainly to the allegations etc by CM) I have replied to this breach of WP:AGF and hastle on my talk page by CM thusly "Whatever. Numerous people think there's no need for both articles, as evidenced by the many attempts to merge them. I'm not acting in bad faith- just according to notability policy and consensus of several editors. Please WP:AGF rather than having a go at other editors. I just don't think we need both these articles, which are mainly on the same subject (numerous other editors think we don't need one, or possibly both, of them either.) An ok job has been done on the SM article but we don't need both of them. Just mine and many other editor's opinion. Sorry if you mistrust people having different opinions than you, but please WP:AGF :) " To explain, I have even read the Seth Material in the past but I don't agree with an attem to overstate it and JR's importance. The SM article has now been made quite good, (see the state it was in a couple of months ago) but we don't need both, for what else is JR particularly notable (though I would probably merge SM into her article.) I'm just following many other editor's views on these articles in the past and formed an AfD. Unlike some I do not just edit on a few articles, I have what I believe to be the good of the encyclopedia at heart and my opinion of these articles is far from unique. I am an established part of the project that has edited many articles, giving various perspectives on theological and other issues. Unlike some :):):):) I am not a WP:SPA :) Just trying to do what other editors have tried to do before me on these articles, and what I think should be done. And no it wouldn't be over long as all the info except about a paragraph about JR's oh so notable poems would be the same and so need not be copied. It's not WP:SNOW as several editors have said we should just have one of these articles (which is what people want. But ok, if people want duplicate articles:) Sticky Parkin 23:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic to hear you argue that the resulting merged article won't be "over long". The gang of editors who started attacking the Seth Material article a couple months ago (which included you) kept saying that the article was too long and needed to be cut. If one argument doesn't work, you'll try another argument.-Caleb Murdock (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:ONEEVENT, nom, Eldereft, etc. Verbal chat 20:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Yale University Library considers Jane Roberts notable enough that they maintain an archive of her life's work. The archive includes the Seth Material, but it also includes her other work, both published and unpublished. Here is their description of the contents: "The papers consist of correspondence, printed material, audio and videotapes, journals, poetry, and other papers documenting the personal life and literary career of Jane Roberts." "Guide to the Jane Roberts Papers". Jane Roberts Papers, Manuscript Group 1090. Manuscripts and Archives. Yale University Library. 2006-01-30.. Are the kilobytes of a Wikipedia page more exclusive that 115 linear feet in the Yale University Library archives? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment just to say that I don't know what this CM editor is talking about with his accusations against me. Yes I tried to merge SM into JR months or weeks ago but I'm by far from the first as several editors are of the same opinion. Hence I brought it to AfD for further discussion as the people editing the articles had reached an empasse. Anyway, just thought I'd set the record straight as he has been warned for personal attacks. If you read what I've said I didn't say JR isn't notable, all I think is we don't need both this articles and the amount of coverage is WP:UNDUE, plus her primary work was to do with the seth material, I doubt you will find any source discussing her that doesn't discuss that or vice versa. I wouldn't call it WP:ONEVENT as it's not about an event, but it could be argued that there's no independent notability. Sticky Parkin 21:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)h[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.