Deletion of Esther Hicks

Comment: per , 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:A)

Comment: She passes  because of her recent appearance in The Secret. Personally, I think her "teachings" are BS, but she's popular and notable among New Agey types. As for , I think these can be rectified with time. My biggest problem with this article is the glaring POV problems, but these too are not beyond fixing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:A)

Comment: Stop the Deletionism|deletionist madness! Let's start improving incomplete articles, not deleting them. She is clearly notable, since she is a NYT-best-selling author, and has a connection to the Secret film. The article also has attained ''publicity'' in the NYT, which means she has "notoreity" (though that doesn't necessarily translated into "notability," as some claim) Keep this article, even if it's new age nonsense. I suggest that this AfD be closed early, as per the  guideline
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: Okay, looks like we've got a pretty clear majority, and this AfD has brought out new reasons to keep the article. Seeing as this is the case, can we get an Admin to |snowball close this baby so we can get on with our lives
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)