Talk:Hay House

Recent changes

User:Ekabhishek has just made a large number of changes to this article (and to Louise Hay that introduce a large number of claims that are:

1. sourced to a large number of unscholarly sources of very doubtful reliability -- often little more than PR puffery;
2. often not contained in even these sources.

I have therefore reverted them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Notabilty has been established

The notability of Hay House has been established per WP:NOTE. If you do not feel that this is notable, please precisely list reasons.

And, please, quit harrassing this and other spiritualist articles with notability tags. Thanks, Madman (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Notabilty has been asserted not established

1. Establishing notability, per WP:NOTE, requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
2. eight of the eleven citations are to Hay House and/or its foreign partners -- and are thus not "independent".
3. of the remaining three, one is a brief commercial-blurb/bio of Hay herself that makes no mention of Hay House, one is simply a financials summary, leaving only a short profile in a publishers' trade magazine (Forward) -- hardly "significant coverage".

As to your latest baseless accusation and demand, I would request that you please:

1. Follow WP:AGF by stopping making such baseless accusations
2. Follow WP:V by stopping restoring unsourced material
3. Follow WP:NOTE by providing evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", rather than simply asserting notability

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the citations are above average for a stub article. Here are hundreds and hundreds of Google news hits. This subject is obviously notable. Madman (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The (newly inserted) San Diego Union-Tribune piece would probably count as "significant coverage". But "obviously notable" is a cop-out -- it is asserting notability without bothering to do the hard work of finding substantial independent sources, that are necessary for building a credible article in any case. That is why WP:NOTE & WP:ORG explicitly require WP:RSs. It is also interesting to note that the 1984 date is not/is no longer in the Billboard piece -- another piece of erroneous pseudoinformation due to careless sourcing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hay House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611055902/http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051204/news_m1m04qa.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051204/news_m1m04qa.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite

Hello, I am going to attempt a rewrite of this page. Please let me know if anyone has any information they would like to add, or if you are already working on it. Thank you.

Literalkoala (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I updated this page. I would love to find more information on the different branches of the company (such as their self help apps and websites), but have had trouble finding good sources.

Literalkoala (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

This may indicate a lack of notability. I see a couple of independent sources listed, though. —PaleoNeonate – 03:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I added two major links from the NYTimes

As a publishing professional for 30 years, I was surprised to see anyone assert that Hay House is not notable. It is one of the bestselling publishers globally, and I added two links from The New York Times to support that. I'll add some more from Publisher's Weekly. It's a juggernaut, and I'll be cheerfully happy to keep supporting that with link after link. I didn't have a ton of time to spend on this page, but I'll keep finding more sources. BTW, I'm not a new age adherent particularly, just a book publishing person, but I'm happy to help bolster the case that Hay House is huge. Fortunaa (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)