Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children's Past Lives (2nd nomination)

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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Past Lives

Children's Past Lives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics

)

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

DEFINITELY fails

• Correction. The review is not anonymous. It is written by Jeffrey L. Geller, professor of psychiatry and director of public-sector psychiatry at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, hardly part of the "woo-woo reincarnation believing community".
  Phil Bridger (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Book has been reviewed = notable. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge whether or not we could write an article, it would make more sense to include this in the article about the author. This should be the default way of handling nonfiction that is not especially notable. It has the advantage of bringing related material together and avoiding duplication. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence suggests that her only notability is as the author of this book. Mangoe (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as article fails
  WP:NBOOK. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Currently the article has no
  talk) 09:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Reliably sourced review: [1]. Their conclusion is appros here:
    • "Bowman’s arguments and evidence are, if nothing else, fascinating. The book is worth the read if for no other reason than to understand a belief system that is rapidly spreading."
  • --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - As per the "Sources" section of
  WP:NOTE, "Multiple sources are generally expected." Acknowledging the one source cited above, that is still only one source. Have no objection to merging either the author bio or book article into the other, based on other discussion here, however. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Notable enough for an article, per
  WP:N. The book is mentioned and/or cited in at least 67 other books according to a Google Books search that eliminates books by the same author and uses of the phrase not associated with this book: [2]. Noted author Deepak Chopra recommends the book on page 265 of his book Life After Death: The Burden of Proof (Random House, 2008). There have also been newspaper mentions of this book, here's one example: Daily Mail - UK, more can be found in the Google News archives. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per citations, reviews and news reports about the book and her research. Also the point raised in the earlier AfD: See [3] for a partial list of libraries that hold this book. --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources are adequate. Johnfos (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. References offered appear to meet notability requirements. — goethean ॐ 21:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've reviewed the sources Jack-A-Roe has dug up. Keep, given those sources. LK (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in light of the additional sources. --LordPistachio ^talk 06:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Click on the Google news search link at the top of the AFD. [4] Do none of those 15 results look credible to you? Dream Focus 10:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to author article per DGG. It's unlikely that this book is going to receive sudden, major coverage from reliable sources that would warrant its expansion from a stub. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:BK as it has been reviewed by multiple reliable sources. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2010 (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.