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. LFaraone 02:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Serious lack of WP:RELIABLE sources to indicate any kind of notability other than puffery and WP:FRINGE pseudoscientific nonsense. Heiro 21:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. Some passing mentions in fringe sources, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasonings as nominator. Heiro 22:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC) strike double vote, nomination for deletion implies a delete vote. --Cavarrone 08:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of signficant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. None of the sources used even come close to meeting our requirements, and my own Google searches turned up nothing even faintly promising. Article is a turmoiled mish-mash of pseudoscientific blither and puffery. Nothing worth salvaging or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the rationale. I'll note that this is the appropriate venue, rather blanking it. —MelbourneStar☆talk 01:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, Mr. MelbourneStar, you're saying that restoring this text was appropriate, and that you stand behind the text that you restored, correct?Stenen Bijl (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Because blanking an article that you see issues with (or just not having the time to discuss it), is the easy way out. Going through with an AfD discussion, is appropriate because you get the community's opinion. I believe 'deleting the article is appropriate - especially done via an AfD. It's simple procedure. —MelbourneStar☆talk 04:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not part of your "community" and do not wish to be. These junk articles are to begin with created and then perpetuated by your "community," so obviously that can't be the solution. I've blanked another one.[1]Stenen Bijl (talk) 08:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need to ask yourself what it is you want to achieve, and then what is the best to to achieve it. Blanking articles isn't a winning strat. Alexbrntalk|contribs|COI 08:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really much care about Wikipedia. Not my site. You need to ask yourself what it is that you want to achieve. Restoring dodgily-sourced bullshit isn't a winning strat. Sorry, did I use "strat" as if it were a word meaning "strategy?" My bad.Stenen Bijl (talk) 08:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Has anyone reached out to Wikipedia editors from their nation to see if there's non-English language sources we're not using and should be? I would imagine that it would be hard to find English-language references for this person, but it does not mean they're not deserving of an article, either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to "reach out" if you are so inclined. Heiro 12:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have also searched in Spanish. Nothing useful there except the Shaefer book.There's a lot more about here in English, all in unreliable sources.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Sadly, I can't find anything myself, but the book itself was reviewed by Publisher's Weekly and if the the subject is one of the detailed people covered that is a major point for GNG, fringe material or otherwise. I'd opt for a merge to International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:59, 7 June 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.