Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Moen


 * 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. The article lacks reliable sources that are independent of the author's own web-site, and the remainder have not been verified. Having been published does not make one individual notable. No foul if the article is later recreated when approperiate citations are found and implemented, and the article is given a very good overhaul. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  05:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Moen

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This person does not appear to be biographically notable. In particular, he seems to be a second-string author and wannabe inventor of an "afterlife communication device". Perhaps this is solely here as a soapbox. Not sure. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.   —Artw (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - he's published five books. I was expecting them to be self-published, so I checked them, but they're not self-published at all. In his field, he's somewhere near the top of the game. The fact that his chosen field is controversial, unscientific, or just plain bollocks doesn't change whether he is notable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They don't seem to be major publishers. I have a friend who published five books with a boutique publisher too. Does that mean she gets an article? ScienceApologist (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be a small house, but Hampton Roads does not appear to vanity publishing. Mind you I have a Wrox book in progress, but I don't consider myself notable. --Blowdart | talk 09:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not the vanity publishing I'm worried about, its the fact that it's niche publishing. A year ago we deleted an article on a science fiction writer who wrote a series of 8 books whose circulation may have numbered somewhere in the thousands. I imagine that this person has a similar figure. I think that in order to be notable, at least one of your books has to be notable. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Richard's reasoning. --Blowdart | talk 08:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is completely sourced to the subject's own website, except for a source for 'no one's proved an afterlife yet', which really doesn't need a source. Further, the bulk of the article goes completely unsourced, with no indication of any reviews by book critics, scientists, or others. Even the assertions about consciousness research', which sounds like psychological and psychiatric fields, aren't supported. Then we've got a linkfarm at the bottom. Ultimately, the article fails to establish notability from outside sources, and so I say delete. If someone could demonstrate notability, stub for total rewrite. ThuranX (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (but with the option to re-create if reliable sources are forthcoming) - a year ago I went into this article thoroughly and found a sole source that wasn't linked to him or his publisher. The recommendations I made at the time haven't been followed up, the aticle's just sat there really. If there is only one independent source (which no-one has even bothered to incorporate) then this should go. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Moen is of value because he's one of very few unaffiliated authors who provides in depth documentation of what happens inside the Monroe Institute. As the institute's sales of educational materials over the decades has run into the millions this is in no way a niche subject matter.  (By way of comparison, the clearly notable US Government Remote Viewer 001 Joseph McMoneagle has written as many institute-related books as him but only clocks up half the Google hits).  Moen's work is also highly rated by those considered to be phasing experts by their peers, see the bottom section of http://www.astralpulse.com/frankkepple.html for example.  I expect I can improve the quality of the article, and add refs without stubbing it. K2709 (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per richard's thinking. The fact that I consider Moan's work a steaming pile of horseshit doesn't come into how notable he is. Truth is not the benchmark for inclusion.Ironholds (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Richard. Edward321 (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * weak delete Richard makes an interesting argument but I don't see any evidence that there are reliable sources about Moen. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete in the absence of the reliably published third-party sources about Moen that would allow him to pass WP:BIO. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: The field is irrelevant, true, but even if the field were miniature ponies or pool tables or postage regulations, the references we have do not establish notability. User:K2709's arguments are wholly unconvincing for determing Wikipedia notability versus notability within a field. DreamGuy (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But thanks to User:K2709 for pointing out another article with very serious problems. Could other people here also pop over to Joseph McMoneagle and figure out what to do there? It's a mess, with an extreme amount of POV problems, including the absurd "McMoneagle's remote viewing time travel revelations" section. DreamGuy (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Per David Eppstein, and due to the apparent lack orf reliable and independent sources. Having written several niche books is insufficient to show notability, without substantial coverage of the author in reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. For lack of notability to WP standards. I can't find any reliable sources that indicate the subject is notable enough for an entry. Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  21:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, and a rather reluctant one. Richard makes a rather convincing argument for keeping the article. (I mean, someone who publishes five books should ideally obtain enough coverage/review from others to establish notability.) However, It takes a back seat to the core of the notability guideline, which requires significant coverage via reliable secondary sources. That's where I drew a blank. I'd be happy to change to keep if someone can find some where I have failed. MuZemike  ( talk ) 22:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added three. K2709 (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Simply being the author of published works is not part of our notability standards. Those works need to receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources in order for them or their author to be considered notable. Dlabtot (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep He is considered very notable within his field. Has five books published by reputed publishing houses. NoVomit (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The very first hit in a Google News archive search is a 1585-word article in the Denver Post about the subject. It may not be enough on its own to show notability, but I'm surprised that so many people have commented on this AfD without doing this most basic of searches. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - For his first book, Amazon generates a partial list of 11 citations. Six of these are independent, and unmentioned so far - .  They include coverage by Robert Peterson who's a pretty big hitter in field of OBE, having co-authored books with Charles Tart. K2709 (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Much as it's a minority interest, unless there are reliable sources, I can't see any reason why this author is notable. His books definately fail WP:BOOK. Richard Hock (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - Clearly fails WP:NOTE; unreliable, non-independent references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammael 42 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BIO due to lack of independent reliable sources. Verbal   chat  14:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.