Talk:Old Souls (book)

Notability and lack of references
This article lacks WP:RS and doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTE. Please specify how this article meets any of the criteria, with reliable sources that could be used. Verbal chat  14:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You state that the local consensus doesn't override the community consensus, yet you seem to have no consensus for these changes. The vast majority on both of the articles in question agreed that the notability is sufficient. If a consensus to your changes is formed then I will not oppose them. Thanks for the good faith revert too, Valyard (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The community consensus is WP:NOTE. Please tell me how this article meets WP:NOTE or a more specific notability guideline, thanks. Verbal chat  14:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please demonstrate this consensus Valyard (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * At the top of WP:NOTE: "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." It is a wikipedia guideline, and as such has broad consensus. Verbal chat  15:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet in reference to this specific article, as with life Before Life, it is widely agreed that notability is established. By that logic, a wide plethora of articles could be tagged, to the point of the whole tagging becoming ridiculous. The majority of editors that reviewed this case decided that notability was sufficient, although I do concede that more sources would be useful for both articles Valyard (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is why the article hasn't been deleted (and those were pointy nominations). The local consensus cannot override the community consensus of WP:NOTE. Rather than arguing about this, why not demonstrate how the article meets WP:NOTE? Any article that fails WP:NOTE should be tagged unless there is a very good reason. Verbal chat  15:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And as I have stated, the issue at hand was notability. The issue of notability itself is that it is an inherent fault with the subject, and since that has been resolved, the tags should not be back. As for the WP:NOTE, the burden is not on me, as it is up to you to justify the changes you make. However, the reasons given for notability in the deletion discussion were that:


 * It has been cited in over 30 books
 * Biographical report by an investigative journalist and editor of the Washington Post
 * Radio interviews on the author have been made
 * Frequently cited in articles about Ian Stevenson
 * And quite simply, the sources were deemed to be already adequate

I would be more than happy to supply reasons for the other article you tagged too Valyard (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The current sources are not adequate, or can you show how they meet WP:NOTE? 30 books may cite it, but do they give it significant coverage? WP:RS please. The author may or may not be notable, but this article isn't about him or Ian Stevenson, so the third and fourth points are irrelevant. Verbal chat  16:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * They are examples of the notability of the subject. As for the 30 books, I do not know, as I am paraphrasing. Another point, to quote: 'The book is listed with non-trivial commentary in the New York University School of Medicine Literature, Arts, and Medicine Database'. In addition, can you justify how this article doesn't meet the notability. As a compromise, I would be happy to accept a tag asking for more sources, yet I believe the notability one is redundant Valyard (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 30 cites means nothing, unless those cites are in coverage of the book. So we'll need to see WP:RS. The database is currently the only "RS" (at a stretch), and one RS of that sort does not meet the criteria. It doesn't meet the criteria because it only has one source, and that doesn't make a case for notability. Verbal chat  16:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The exact consensus that was made was that the sources were suitable to establish reliability, therefore your assessment is arbitrary. I suggest a compromise on both pages (this and Life Before Life), to remove the notability tags, as consensus seems to suggest this, and replace it with a tag requesting extra sources/citations. I feel that this would adequately draw attention to the issues you have outlined without running contrary to previous decisions Valyard (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You will have to change the community consensus at WP:NOTE before I would support that. However, if you or anyone else can bring WP:RS establish notability then that would be fine. Verbal chat  17:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This argument is beginning to become circular. My belief is that it is not an issue of WP:NOTE as this has been adequately established to the majority. The issue that you are raising is one of sources, and quite rightly so. This is why I suggested sources tags. In addition, I am curious as to whether your rationale for these taggings is ideological, given the similar activity on the articles of similar books, all of which have been approved by the community Valyard (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note is a guideline that has community wide consesnsus and cannot be overuled by a small, bad faith AfD. We have these rules, and the tags apply correctly to these pages. Is your opposition to following the rules ideological? Verbal chat  20:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I have no opposition to following the rules. I believe that you have an axe to grind related to these articles. This is reflected in you saying a 'small, bad faith AFD', and I feel that you are annoyed perhaps that despite your objections, the majority of people agreed that notability was established. Finally, I have no ideological opposition, I consider myself a moderate skeptic, yet the outright cynicism and double standards on WP annoy me, which is why I have removed a large amount of personal attacks etc on paranormal believers Valyard (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The community has made the rules that are in WP:NOTE. The AfD was created by a nominator who was involved, biased, and wanted to keep the article. That's a bad faith nomination, and irrelevant. I am very easy to convince: bring evidence that satisfies WP:NOTE. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>  chat  21:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I just did i believe :) mark nutley (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong link for reference number 9.24.251.197.135 (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Notability established
I've added some more sources to the article, see. Now we have multiple book reviews and considerable media coverage. Notability has clearly been established. Johnfos (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct, but verbal seems to have an issue with this article for some reason, plenty of references to show notability yet he tags it anyway and does not bother to come to talk, how peculiar mark nutley (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please show with reference to our policies and reliable sources how this meets our criteria. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop slapping tags on an article which is obviously notable. Being written about in that many MSM sources establishes notability, if you feel the article is not notable do an AFD mark nutley (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Verbal is just playing games, with many Reincarnation research articles now. There is plenty of published material here to support notability, per the Notability (books) criterion which says: "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself..." Johnfos (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)