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. In the end I do not feel that there were enough strong reliable sources to warrant GNG or ANYBIO. Several claims about best-selling and awards were not substantiated as noteworthy or existing. If anything there appears to be a stronger argument about an article about his technique than the person himself but even then the number of sources where his technique were the primary focus of the publication were few. Mkdw ^talk 03:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Michael Newton (hypnotist)

Michael Newton (hypnotist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

The article has been around for five years but no-one has managed to add evidence of notability. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 01:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Hey RHaworth, there is a reason why evidence of notability hasn't been added to the article. He isn't notable. I was unable to find any coverage of this individual in reliable independent sources, though he is discussed in unreliable fringe sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete This guy appears to be a non-notable hypnotherapist. If nothing has come up in 5 years, I don't see it changing anytime soon. TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep He is indeed notable if not as a hypnotist according to Wiki policy, then as an author, since both his books Journey of Souls and Destiny of Souls are bestsellers translated to over 25 languages. Hepcat65 ( talk) 10:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment WP:Author applies to his work as an hypnotist too, it redirects to Creative Professionals where point #2 says: The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. Newton is famous for having developed LBL = life between life therapy in the regression hypnotism field, this new technique has a significant following. :Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Hepcat65 ( talk) 11:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hepcat65 ( talk) 11:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep Agree with Hepcat65. In addition, he is the founder of a school of past-life regression hypnotherapy with a world-wide reach -- over 30 countries. He is the subject of a book and documentary film. -- EPadmirateur ( talk) 18:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep In 2001 he was a winner of the annual Independent Publishers Book Award for Destiny of Souls. He has also been on many TV and radio talk shows. Some of these interview recordings can be found online. This third party award should suffice. AlexGWU ( talk) 23:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment Being interviewed in various places does not confer notability. Winning a promotional, indiscriminate non-notable book award does not confer notability. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Independent_Publisher_Book_Award_(2nd_nomination)#Independent_Publisher_Book_Award. Which best-seller list has his books been on, and where has consensus been established that this confers notability? Where are the citations to significant coverage in independent, reliable sources? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No evidence of notability. Agree with Cullen, award not notable, interviews don't convey notability, claim of bestseller not supported. Where are the reliable sources with articles about this world wide research school? Has any of this research been published in peer reviewed journals? Any of his books reviewed by peer reviewed journals or significant reviewers? - - MrBill3 ( talk) 09:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment The publisher Llewellyn Worldwide lists Journey of Souls as having sold "over 400,000" copies and Destiny of Souls as having sold "over 200,000" copies here. This bio also lists Newton as having received a Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology. -- EPadmirateur ( talk) 17:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment Selling "X" number of books does not confer notability and we don't call a book a "best seller" based on promotional claims by the publisher, which specializes in fringe topics. Holding a PhD degree most certainly does not confer notability and we don't even know which institution conferred the degree. See WP:ACADEMIC. We need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and no one has yet been able to produce it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment What constitutes a reliable independent award or a prize? IPBA is an industry known award. Thanks.. AlexGWU ( talk) 06:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Reply I suggest that you start by reading the deletion discussion linked above, paying special attention to those who recommended deleting the article on the award. Notable awards are those that receive significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. If the award is only discussed in detail by the awarding organization, and by people who have won the award and their close associates, then the award is not notable and winning it doesn't confer notability. Awards that allow self-nomination are also suspect. Awards that have a large number of subcategories, and combine highly notable winners with obscure winners are also suspect, as this may be a case of promotionalism by association. If someone creates an award for "the world's greatest scientists", and then gives it to Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, and some guy who claims the ability to talk to people's past lives, then that is not a credible award, despite the indisputable notability of the first two scientists. Every industry has awards. The vast majority, including this one, are run-of-the-mill back slapping, and do not confer notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Response Point taken! thanks for clarifying, however common sense suggests that an award presenting outfit which has been around since 96 and each year thousands of publishers, (some of which are prestigious university presses such as Princeton, Yale etc.) apply to enter in their annual contests by actually paying them an entrance fee must have established a reasonable level of reliability and credibility amongst such an internationally large community. That is a fact; regardless of the outfit's objectives of promotional/commercial nature. Next, Here is a link to a 2008 deletion request for Michael Newton's article which was overturned 'cause the article survived until now. AlexGWU ( talk) 05:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Reply The fact that publishers pay a fee to enter is a point against the notability of the award. We call that a "pay to play" award. Nobody pays to get considered for a Nobel Prize, a Pulitzer Prize, an Order of the British Empire or a Presidential Medal of Freedom. The fact that this article has stayed around for several years is not a convincing argument to keep it. We have nearly 4.4 million articles, and I have no doubt that many thousands ought to be deleted. We consider them one at a time, the time for this one is now, and no one has produced significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Have they? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Response You missed my point or too much info in my paragraph was not fully processed. Let me say it in a different way. When a large community of international publishers are chasing after receiving such an award, by what authority or qualification can one claim such an award is not reliable? no one can 'cause the sheer volume of such actions make it reliable by default. It indicates people and publishers trust that establishment's processes. Also remember we are not talking about literary awards here. These are focused on works for originality, new concepts and the sort. The fact that this article had a deletion request reversed is pretty substantial. On your other point, I definitely agree with you that there are a lot of articles worthy of deletion and would gladly help to clean them up. AlexGWU ( talk) 04:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment. Just as a note, if an award is notable it is covered by reliable sources like notable book reviews, newspaper and magazine articles etc. If a book is notable in a field the journals of that field usually review it. If a school of theory or technique is of note it is covered by journals and books in the field. If a teaching institution is of note it is covered by journals, newspapers and books.- - MrBill3 ( talk) 09:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Reply The article requires notability not the award. The award must be verifiable and reliable to establish notability for the article and it does. See Wiki Guidlines on notability WP:GNG

Response The subject of the WP article requires notability as in, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The source does not provide significant coverage it simply lists a book by the subject as winning one of 50 awards given to a field of 770. The source states nothing more about the subject or the book. The notability guidelines you cited also state, "Sources should be secondary". This source is primary, it is the organization bestowing the award not an independent RS reporting on the award. The GNG goes on to explain, "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity" The source is a press release for an award that is nothing more than a promotion for book publishers. The coverage is not significant, the source is not secondary, the whole thing is a promotional activity, there is no indication it was not short term. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 06:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment. So far notability is supported by being subject of book and documentary. Is there any evidence the book and documentary are notable or significant? No other publication discussing the subject or his "school". No research published by subject or his "school". No evidence of notability of subject's books (best seller lists, reviews in notable publications, use as references in publications, etc.) award not notable (no reportage in notable publications, etc). If subject is famous for developing technique where is the evidence? I maintain my position delete. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 02:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Response There is no study or evidence in journals and magazines denying or disproving his technique either. The field about this side of the human condition is relatively very new and its only recently that it is being more and more researched and gaining interest within the scientific community. AlexGWU ( talk) 04:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Reply. This provides no evidence of notability, no study or evidence in journals and magazines shows a distinct lack of notability. Something new should be included in an encyclopedia only if it is notable. Who has reported on, discussed or even mentioned this technique or theory? Where is the "more and more" research? Where is the evidence of any interest in the scientific community? - - MrBill3 ( talk) 05:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Reply The independent source (in this case IP awards) for the article requires to be reliable and verifiable which it is. It does not need to be notable. AlexGWU ( talk) 04:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Response The independent source is required to state that the subject of the article is notable. I didn't see that in the source. All I saw was that a book authored by the subject won an insignificant award. Where is notability established by this? Where is the significant coverage? What source says something more about the subject? What source discusses his theories, school or the research about them? Where in any source is the subject called notable or associated with anything notable? - - MrBill3 ( talk) 06:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Tom Morris ( talk) 08:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Michael Newton and his work are mentioned in a number of books, notably a dissertation, to meet the requirement for WP:GNG, "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I believe none of these is self-published. This is only a partial list.
  • Healing Soul: Integrating Jungian Psychology and Regressive Therapies [dissertation] by Anthony Craig Rush [1]
  • Soul Visioning: Clear the Past, Create Your Future by Susan Wisehart [2]
  • 50 Spiritual Classics: Timeless Wisdom from 50 Great Books of Inner Discovery, Enlightenment and Purpose edited by Tom Butler-Bowdon [3]
  • The High Heeled Guide to Enlightenment by Alice Grist [4]
  • "IN YOUR LIFETIME, FOLLOW THE LIGHT, NOT THE DARKNESS" by M. Petersen [5]
  • Healing the Eternal Soul - Insights from Past Life and Spiritual Regression by Andy Tomlinson [6]
  • Divination: Perspectives for a New Millennium edited by Patrick Curry [7]
  • Beautiful Schools by Ralph Shepherd [8]
  • Meta-Physician on Call for Better Health: Metaphysics and Medicine for Mind, Body and Spirit by Steven E. Hodes [9]
  • The Karma Handbook by Trutz Hardo [10]
  • The Big Book of Reincarnation: Examining the Evidence that We Have All Lived Before by Roy Stemman [11]

-- EPadmirateur ( talk) 02:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Also mentioned in a Huffington Post blog by Russ Wellen "What if We Don't Want to be Greeted by Loved Ones at Death?" [12] -- EPadmirateur ( talk) 02:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply

As I said over two weeks ago when this debate began, EPadmirateur, Newton is discussed in "unreliable, fringe sources". Every single source on your list is a fawning, gushing, credulous unreliable fringe source, pushing the totally unproven notion that hypnosis enables people's "past lives" to be revealed. Fringe sources do not establish notability. We need reliable sources for that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Further comment - According to WP notability guidelines for fringe theories (and presumably also fringe theorists), "To be notable, at least one reliable secondary source must have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it... if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate..." (emphasis added).

Furthermore, " Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources..." (emphasis added).

Here are several academic sources that reference Michael Newton's work extensively, in particular the first few:

• Angela Voss (2010). Life between Lives Therapy: A Mystery Ritual for Modern Times? in Patrick Curry (ed.), Divination: Perspectives for a New Millennium, pp. 211-242, Ashgate Publishing (2010). ISBN  978-1409405559. [13]. This is an entire chapter describing Newton's LBL therapy to explore the phenomenon of "spiritual revelation" as well as the "question of initiation", viewing Newton's work potentially as a "contemporary means of initiation".
• Barbara Stevens Barnum (2010). Spirituality in Nursing: The Challenges of Complexity, Third Edition, p. 53, Springer Publishing [14] [15]. This book gives an overview of a number of techniques and therapies, including Newton's. Quote: "Newton (1994) reports that souls are organized in the spirit world after death: (quote). Newton gives much more content concerning the world encountered between lives in his more recent (2004) book. Again, the information was collected by use of hypnotic regression on large numbers of clients."
• Jonathan Reams (2010). The Heart and Soul of Leadership: A Transpersonally Oriented Examination of How Quality of Presence Impacts Leadership. Paper presented at Integral theory Conference (2010) [16]. Quote: "Our character shows up early in our lives and he reframes the challenges, traumas and abuses we suffer as means by which our character is tempered and our calling drawn out of us. Newton (1994, 2000, 2009) draws on numerous case studies of hypnotherapy regression to further outline the details of this process. From the view of the human aspect of our existence, our Work, calling, or purpose is how we perceive what from soul’s point of view is the particular lesson or contribution we are focused on at this step in our evolution."
• Jonathan Reams (2008). A Transpersonal View of Integral Theory: Disentangling Notions of the Soul. Paper presented at Integral Theory Conference (2008). [17]. Quote: "There are many implications for how this view impacts integral theory. Some are compatible with existing articulations of it while others may throw a different light on the subject. Some brief examples of these include; our ideas about stage development and the possibilities inherent within a given lifetime or the emergence of pathologies framed as karmic manifestations. How we chose as soul to grow from our experiences in this lifetime (Hillman 1996; Newton, 2000) can be seen to impact where, when and how we manifest circumstances in our life, whether it is as parents, culture, traumatic experiences etc."
• Terence J. Palmer (2009). The Spirit of Fear, paper presented at British Association for the Study of Religions (BASR) 2009 conference: Religions, Landscapes and Other Uncertain Boundaries. [18] [19]. Quote: "Christian teaching tells us that to have faith in Divine Love is to be without fear, and to have fear is to be not perfect in Divine Love, or perfect in one’s faith in God or the Divine nature of unconditional love. Testimony to this principle is given in the documented transcription of a therapy session where the patient regressed to what has become known as ‘the life between lives’ (Newton, 2004). In this transcription, the therapist, Dr. Irene Hickman is conversing with the patient in a hypnotic trance. (section of a transcript from Newton's 2004 book)."
• Stan H. Hodges and Jason S. Ulsperger (2005). Presentations of the Paranormal: The impression management strategies and professionalization tactics of psychics and spirit mediums. Free Inquiry In Creative Sociology, 33(1), 35-50. [20]. Quote: "This tactic of linking alternative ways of healing together gives students a practical purpose to their profession as well as legitimizes it to the individual by tying it spiritually to the respectability of the medical profession by a venue of accredited education (Newton 1999, 2000; Hodges 2002)."
• Eric J. Christopher (2000). Exploring the Effectiveness of Past-life Therapy (Masters thesis). [21]. Quote: "The concept of souls reincarnating to earth for the purpose of enhancing their spiritual development is also consistent with Dr. Michael Newton’s findings. Newton, a clinical psychologist and master hypnotherapist in northern California, hypnotically regressed hundreds of clients, over a 10-year period, with wide-ranging belief systems regarding religion and the afterlife. He found a number of astonishing consistencies between all of his clients’ descriptions of both the soul’s journey after physical death and also the soul’s purpose which has convinced him that there is a grand design and order to life and the afterlife (Newton, 1997)."
• Diana Coldman (2007). Beyond Results: When clients seek deeper understanding. The Bulletin of the Association for Coaching, 10. [22]. Quote: "Global activity seems to suggest that human consciousness in these areas is expanding, as evidenced by films such as ‘What the Bleep do we Know?’ and leading authorities such as The Michael Newton Institute and their evidence-based work relating to Life Between Lives. Spiritual or holistic coaches are therefore in a unique position to act as catalysts for this continuing unfolding of human potential that is the path we all follow."
• Simut, C.C. (2011). The theology of creation in Vito Mancuso's radical theology. Acta Theologica, 31(1), 138-155. [23]. Quote: "With reference to the idea of energy, Mancuso seems convinced that the universe in its entirety in indwelled by a fundamental reality which he defines as energy. He is definitely not alone in associating energy with creation, which are corroborated in the thought of Michael Newton (Newton 2004:339). As an interesting peculiarity, one would probably notice the weird title coincidence between Michael Newton's Destiny of Souls and Vito Mancuso's The Soul and Its Destiny."
• Peter Novak (2002). Division of the Self: Life After Death and the Binary Soul Doctrine. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 20(3), 143-189. [24]. Quote: "Michael Newton (1994) also maintained, based on his study of past life regressions, that people’s souls split into two parts between one life and the next. His subjects reported that half a person’s soul often remains behind in the netherworld, in a sort of dormancy or dreaming sleep, while the other half travels back to earth to be reincarnated into another body."
• Finally a disparaging commentary published in Huffington Post: Russ Wellen (2009). "What if We Don't Want to be Greeted by Loved Ones at Death?" [25]. Quote: "Unfeeling as it sounds, that may be all that's required according to psychologist and hypnotist [Michael] Newton. The author of popular and provocative books about reincarnation like Journey of Souls and Destiny of Souls, he's at the forefront of the minority who, instead of past lives, explores lives between lives, aka, the afterlife. According to Dr. Newton's hypnosis subjects, once family greets you, its members fade into the woodwork (or cloudwork, as it were), at least for the time being. You then move on to your "soul group" -- not the Earth, Wind and Fire kind, but the type said to account for that "Haven't I met you before?" feeling. Composed of individuals with whom we've reincarnated on a regular basis, we catch up on old times with them in the afterlife. This is where the worst fears of those to whom family has been an albatross around their necks come to fruition. Soul groups, see, are said to often include family members. Furthermore, when it comes to reincarnation, family roles are interchangeable."

-- EPadmirateur ( talk) 19:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Reply The full chapter you mention is clearly a fringe source. Most of the rest are passing mentions as opposed to significant coverage, and most if not all are fringe sources. Please point to any that aren't fringe. The Huffington Post reference is a blog post expressing personal opinions and is so unreliable that it gets Newton's first name wrong. Since you have done so much research on Newton, EPadmirareur, can you tell us which university gave him a PhD? Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I can't find anything in WP policies that defines a "fringe source" and that states that a "fringe source" is not acceptable for WP. There seem to be just reliable sources which include (as I quoted earlier) books published by respected publishing houses. Ashgate Publishing is a respected academic publisher. The book Divination is an academic publication and the Voss article is an academic examination of Newton's LBL therapy. This reference is a reliable source. Furthermore, Springer Publishing is a respected academic publisher and Barnum's book is an academic treatment of a wide number of therapies and practices, including Newton's LBL therapy. Finally, ProQuest is a respected source for publishing doctoral dissertations, including a dissertation by Rush which references Newton's LBL therapy extensively. So we have the following three reliable sources that establish Newton's notability:

• Angela Voss (2010). Life between Lives Therapy: A Mystery Ritual for Modern Times? in Patrick Curry (ed.), Divination: Perspectives for a New Millennium, pp. 211-242, Ashgate Publishing (2010). ISBN  978-1409405559. [26]. This is an entire chapter describing Newton's LBL therapy to explore the phenomenon of "spiritual revelation" as well as the "question of initiation", viewing Newton's work potentially as a "contemporary means of initiation".
• Barbara Stevens Barnum (2010). Spirituality in Nursing: The Challenges of Complexity, Third Edition, p. 53, Springer Publishing [27] [28]. This book gives an overview of a number of techniques and therapies, including Newton's. Quote: "Newton (1994) reports that souls are organized in the spirit world after death: (quote). Newton gives much more content concerning the world encountered between lives in his more recent (2004) book. Again, the information was collected by use of hypnotic regression on large numbers of clients."
• Anthony Craig Rush (2011). Healing Soul: Integrating Jungian Psychology and Regressive Therapies [dissertation] ProQuest [29]. Quote: "Newton [is] arguably the leading authority on life between life therapy (p. 59)"

-- EPadmirateur ( talk) 17:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment I agree in general with Cullen. Voss 2010 could be represented as RS but this is clearly in the promulgators and popularizers category. Barnum 2010, RS but just a passing mention. Reams 2010 & 2008 papers presented at conferences aren't really RS much less at fringe conferences. Palmer 2009 again paper at a conference not RS. Hodges & Ulsperger 2005 passing mention only no discussion. Christopher 2000 a masters thesis why waste our time with this? Coldman 2007 fringe promulgator and popularizer. Simut 2011 passing mention only no discussion. Novak 2002 fringe promulgator and popularizer. Wellen 2009 blog post not RS. One way to think about this is, with the material cited what could be added to the article? Where is the substance of an encylopedic article? Do any of these sources discuss Newton's theories in any kind of detail, do they provide description, analysis or commentary? There just isn't any support beyond mentions which doesn't satisfy notability criteria. Do any of the editors who early on voted keep have any policy based support with references? - - MrBill3 ( talk) 00:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Reply PhD theses should be used with great caution, and I don't believe this one establishes notability. The nursing source seems to be a passing mention rather than significant coverage but I would like to hear other opinions on that. Now as to Voss, who clearly provides significant coverage. So the question is whether the coverage is reliable and independent. The publisher is an academic house, but reliability combines an evaluation of the writer as well. On her website, Voss identifies herself first and foremost as an astrologer and tarot reader, and then talks about academic credentials. I consider her a fringe source without the expertise to critically evaluate the extraordinary claims of a hypnotist, and therefore not a reliable source. Now, as to her independence, she makes it clear that she has a friendship with Newton, and that she assisted him in finding a university, the identity of which I have not yet learned, that would accept his work as part of a PhD program. So I contend that she is neither reliable nor independent. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete: let an inclusionist say it for ya: there's no evidence of notability here, and the keep votes are not policy based and should be discounted. if after 4 weeks there was evidence of notability, we would have found it. Wikipedia is not linkedin, whether for competent professionals, or competent fringe professionals.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 05:10, 13 December 2013 (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.