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 &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Children's Past Lives
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

DEFINITELY fails WP:BK. A non-academic book with no independent reviews or notice outside of the woo-woo reincarnation believing community. Previous attempts to establish notability in the last AfD failed. Being in a library does not qualify as a reasonable standard for inclusion and the one review found by the writer of the article is done anonymously! Don't be fooled by the poor arguments in that discussion.ScienceApologist (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Keep Book has been reviewed = notable. --Michael C. Price talk 20:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Evidence suggests that her only notability is as the author of this book. Mangoe (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as article fails WP:NBOOK. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  00:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Currently the article has no reliable sources to attest notability. I have tagged the article for rescue so that any existing good references can be dug up. __meco (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Reliably sourced review: . 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)
 * 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)
 * Keep. Notable enough for an article, per WP:BK and 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: .  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)
 * Keep per citations, reviews and news reports about the book and her research. Also the point raised in the earlier AfD: See for a partial list of libraries that hold this book. --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources are adequate. Johnfos (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. References offered appear to meet notability requirements. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've reviewed the sources Jack-A-Roe has dug up. Keep, given those sources. LK (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep in light of the additional sources. -- Lord Pistachio  talk 06:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Click on the Google news search link at the top of the AFD. Do none of those 15 results look credible to you?   D r e a m Focus  10:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Keep per WP:BK as it has been reviewed by multiple reliable sources. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2010 (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.