Deletion of Donna Eden

Comment: I see a lot of sources, but how many of them actually qualify as |reliable? Not many, indeed probably none. The only source that's arguably reliable and independent of the subject is the Amazon bestsellers chart, and even if she's sold a lot of books, I'm not sure we can justify a biography based on that alone. This article also has serious problems with both neutrality and factual accuracy; I sincerely doubt that she really can 'see the body's energies' or 'correct imbalances in the body'. If it is kept, all that will need to be cleaned up
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Appears notable enough given the number of books and links cited. Needs perhaps additional sourcing if there are any claims of concern, plus it needs to adhere to . I noticed the BLP banner wasn't included so I have added it which may spark additional improvements by members of the Bio WikiProject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Marginal notability according to Wikipedia standards that rely on publications and particularly looking at  for assessing influence of the work (this method would pick up influence ''within the New Age community'' insofar as the New Age community publishes). If notable, obviously the "ability" claims can be discussed as claims; Eden's own website is a reliable source for her ''claims'' -- claims being statements that one makes about oneself. But this still needs some work on clarity and to comply with style for 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:FRINGE)