Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Parsons (nondual communicator)

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. Sufficient consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Parsons (nondual communicator)

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

Article as of 24 Feb 2016 is sourced from unreliable and/or self-published sources.

See

among other cites.

Quite possibly a WP:A7 candidate Shirt58 (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Author - Tony is a significant communicator of nonduality, held in respect within that sphere. He has been a communicator for many years and his books have been translated into many languages. — Onlyoneness (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
sorry Onlyoneness (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although www.advaita.org.uk and www.scienceandnonduality.com may not be "liked" as self-publicised sources they are well considered in nonduality circles. There are eight other sources. Onlyoneness (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- sources are very dubious and do nothing to establish notability. Not much of value jumped out to me via a Google search. GAB^Hello! 23:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - massively undue article, no real evidence of notability. Blythwood (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2016 (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.