Talk:Sharon Janis/Archive 1

message: When I first created this article, it was just one of many pieces of knowledge I wanted to see preserved for future generations. Now on its third "release" it has become a personal crusade. I am firstly bemused that this article has been a target for removal when so many other people I've successfully entered are much more obscure, and secondly I'm frankly angry that people have made such superficial judgements about what should not be included. In my second attempt at the article I removed exaggerations and inaccuracies and included as many external links as I could find that verified the content. After much painstaking work, the article was summarily deleted within hours, and unlike the first time without due process. I have learned the hard way the importance of backups!
In this third attempt I have reduced the number of links, particularly in sites selling her books. My intention was to show that her work is widely published widely in several languages, but may have come across as a sales pitch, so only the one UK outlet is left in.
It was not possible to verify every fact with a direct link, but all the bodies mentioned have their own websites (except to my knowledge the ashram) and the content can be verified by contacting them directly. I have decided not to list all the bodies sites as they are not directly relevant to the article, and those I did list in the second attempt didn't save the article anyway.
If I fail to have this entry kept, I do hope that it is through reasoned argument and due process. I am open to the idea that I can be misguided, but I want it clearly proven before I accept that is the case. Failing this I will fight on regardless of cost in time and energy for the cause of none other than the proliferation of knowledge, which should not be denied to anybody. I would certainly like to see someone working at least as hard at discrediting this work as I have in justifying it.
If you have a reasonable point to make, please do so here. If you can persuade me I am misguided I will close the article myself. Of course words of support and encouragement are equally welcome!
User:Headshaker 07:51 (BST) 14 July 2006
:Just a minor point, it's my opinion that no one is trying to "discredit" the material.  To me, the word discredit implies that we are questioning the truth of the material provided, or actively trying to show that it is false.  I can only speak for myself when I say, that I do not doubt it's veracity. It's just my opinion that some of the material provided does not satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines to verifiability.  Any fact can be verified by a reader if they are willing to spend the time and money to contact the subject or the subject's company, but asking them to do just that does not satisfy the Wikipedia's guidelines.  Material should be "easily" verifiable.  I think of truth as an absolutely necessary condition to determine whether or not material should be added, but by itself is not sufficient to guarantee that the material will remain.  That's just my take as a fellow editor, with no more authority than any other editor.  I am more than willing to discuss this further.  Also, this link might be useful assume good faith.  I owe you an apology. When I initially nominated the article for deletion, I did not assume good faith.TheRingess 08:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

message: Hi, after searching for evidence I'm convinced that Sharon Janis is notable.  She passes WP:Bio because she is a published author and editor who has received multiple awards for her work.  Here's some of the independent reviews for her book 'Never To Return: A Modern Quest For Eternal Truth.'    She has won two Associated Press awards, and apparently an Emmy award.  The two Associated Press awards alone are enough to satisfy one of the criterias of WP:BIO.  Dionyseus 13:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sharon Janis is notable 

message: I created this section.  I think with a little research it could be expanded to include dates and shows.TheRingess 01:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Awards

message: I have made my consultations and conclude that my own second draft was 100% accurate and all of it verifiable for anyone with a computer, the internet, a telephone and a brain. After contacting the author herself, I have decided that I have no further comment to add. A copy of the e-mail is on my talk page.
Headshaker 05:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sharon Janis speaks 

message: I've added a refs template to initiate the search for media references.  The Spiritual Happiness web site and IMDB are all we have so far; clearly there must be some other reference -- Samir   धर्म 07:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs template 

message: I am very pleased that this article has survived, which I see as a victory for justice and knowledge.  I have no intention of further editing the current version myself. However, I still believe my own revision is a much more thorough and informative text. This is now permanently available on my talk page.
Headshaker 18:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Originator's Cut"