Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clairgnosis

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clairgnosis

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

Neologism with no reliable sources about the term rather than just using the term. This might be a candidate for Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 07:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny, I tried fixing this article earlier by stubbing it down and I even provided a (crappy) reference, but the author undid my edits and added back a bunch of fluff. I don't care enough about the topic to fix it anymore, and in its current form I say delete and check Wikitionary for an entry. Pdcook (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, self-promotional neologism, cited only to article author's own work. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you speedily delete it again for the same reason? Pdcook (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the reference of misticm to the clairgnosis article. I did not intentionally unedit as I am new to the use of tools on wikipedia. I have looked on line-the term in used often on websites of intuitive and energy teachers. However, it is most often used in improper context. I am open to presenting any reference necessary. I did have a link to a book but was asked to remove it. I tried to refer to a published manuscript-not for the purpose of selling the book but for purpose of adding reliable information about the term. The new age community is often in development and quickly changes or creates new terms. The term clairgnosis have been in use for about ten years since the Reiki movement became popolar. http://www.elizabethmorgan.net/glossary.htm http://www.lightsourcegroup.com/Metaphysics%20101%20A%20-%20F.htm http://www.elizabethmorgan.net/glossary.htm http://www.insightclairvoyance.net/Classes.html There are thousands more sites that use this term. They are not connected to me or each other. This seems to be fair reason to add the term. I do know I am unfamiliar with the tools and am probably not setting up the page as should be. I am open to learning more.

Shall I list here pages on the web that use this term?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shealyhealy (talk • contribs) 22:19, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Please add references in compliance with Wikipedia:Reliable sources on the article page. Also, as you have admitted you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia, please review Wikipedia:Five pillars and do any test editing in the sandbox or in a subpage in your Wikipedia:User page. Thanks, Pdcook (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Regarding author Shealyhealy's statement that 'thousands more sites use this term', Google can only find 59 of them (330 including duplicates), and none seem to be secondary sources. WP:NEO says that "Neologisms that are in wide use-but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." That's why I brought this discussion to AfD, since neologisms don't qualify for speedy deletion as I understand it. I can also support CSD for self-promotion, but the article has been speedily deleted twice for that reason and keeps reappearing without changes. Thanks, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 01:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A term such as clairgnosis found 59 times in the web carries weight that the term exists. I am willing to make any changes necessary to the article to make it appropriate to Wikipedia. I am new here and certainly have created work for those who are working for the integrity of Wikepedia. The term however is a new age term in use. There is a movement within the YMCA of the USA to promote a disciplin/practice (similar to Yoga) that is said to increase the state of clairgnosis. The US YMCA have taken well deserved credit for the "invention" of several mainstream sports. Would the YMCA be a reliable source for the word? Wouldn't Wikipedia want to be involved with presenting a term that will be mainstream through YMCA practices? Did you know bowling was once a new term and first used at the YMCA? There are many new terms and fitness practices now taught through the YMCA that are not in Wikipedia. I don't want to be the advocate for all of them. But, do you see this as a discussion point for Widipedia? How can we keep the term? I am simply trying to quicken the visibility of the term as now there seem to be lots of mis-use in the newage/fitness community. It may sound like fluff to those who are not interested or schooled in this area. But, to the community that practices alternative means of wellness-this issue is not fluff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.69.216 (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The purpose of Wikipedia is not to "quicken the visibility" of anything. If you wish to promote this term, then you are in the wrong place. Please review WP:5 Pillars.Pdcook (talk) 03:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google Advanced Search

WebHide optionsShow options... Results 71 - 80 of about 364 for clairgnosis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.69.216 (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biofield energy healing from the inside- ►umich.edu [PDF] SL Warber, D Cornelio, J Straughn, G Kile - Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine, 2004 - liebertonline.com ... WARBER ET AL. 1110 Page 5. clairgnosis (clear thinking), clairvoyance, a knowingness or a sixth sense, or an intuitive experience. ... Cited by 5 - Related articles - All 3 versions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.69.216 (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism and self-promotion. WP:NEO sets a high bar for articles about neologisms: "Articles on protologisms are usually deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." In this case I note that the article is by Shealyhealy (talk · contribs), an SPA, and that the references are a book by Sherry Healy and the website shealyinternational.com. JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2009 (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.