Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marilyn Schlitz

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Schlitz

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

Lacks the multiple, nontrivial reliable sources to build an article, tagged for over two years trying to fix. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet WP:BASIC, reliable secondary sources seem hard to find. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article treats the oxymoronically named "Institute for Noetic Science" as a serious academic enterprise, and lavishes praise upon this woman as being involved in said enterprise. Unfortunately the with half a brain can see through the nonsense that is "noetic science". Fails WP:PROF, might meet WP:GNG if additional sources can be found, but delete until then. Additional notes (1) there's a copy of this at User:Seofon/Sandbox. Secondly, the author Seofon (talk · contribs) appears to be an WP:SPA and Makevocab (talk · contribs) was blocked for block evasion by John Vandenberg (talk · contribs) but I don't know who's sock he was. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Holdings of her books number in the few hundreds, which is very low for the self-help publishing sector. There's quite a bit of YouTube and Twitter ephemera, but Schlitz also has a fairly large body of published research. WoS shows 29 papers going back to 1980, but an h-index of only 8. I would categorize this as very average. Agricola44 (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Very much a fringe parapsychologist, the problem being she is not notable enough and reliable sources can not be located. Goblin Face (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2014 (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.