Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Have You Lived Before This Life


 * 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 no consensus. Greeves (talk • contribs) 17:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Have You Lived Before This Life

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

Article covers a book that claims to have been out of print since 1989, although I did find a scientology bookstore that offered copies (but no publication information...I assume it is back in print). No secondary sources could be found outside of "Operation Clambake" which had the 4. Have You Lived Before This Life, and it was mentioned in a few blogs, but those only referanced it to say that "yes, scientology believes in reincarnation" which is already covered by many other wikipedia pages. It isn't even the primary source of the scientology doctrine of reincarnation, only a collection of stories about scientologists talking about past lives. not notable outsde the church or within the church (they stoped publishing it, and wern't in a hurry to bring it back). Coffeepusher (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I searched through several archival sources and databases in an attempt to find WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that significantly analyze and discuss this book. There are a few mentions of it in other books, but the majority of those are either other books affiliated with the Church of Scientology itself, or just passing mentions in no more than a sentence or so, and not a detailed analysis or in-depth discussion. Most simply give it a one-line mention. A search in book reviews in InfoTrac did yield one review, West Coast Review of Books Jan. 1979 p44, but I don't have access to that source. However, in a search of three different news archive sources, one yielded zero results, and the others resulted in three hits - all of which appeared to be a form of Scientology advertising as part of a public relations campaign - no independent discussion/analysis. So really I was only able to find the presence of the one book review, and there is the brief description in Paulette Cooper's The Scandal of Scientology. Not really enough to assert notability, IMHO.  Cirt (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've cleaned up the references in the article, and while there could be more, there seems to be enough for a short article. The "brief description" in Paulette Cooper's The Scandal of Scientology is chapter four of her book. There are couple of bits in Bare-Faced Messiah that I'm surprised no one dug up. (Also in A Piece of Blue Sky, but that was the source that was expanded on for BFM so it's a bit redundant.) AndroidCat (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, AndroidCat's efforts demonstrate adequate existence of reliable sources, which shouldn't be surprising, given the notability/notoriety of the book's author. -- M P er el 17:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem with the article as I see it is the Notablility of the book itself. I appriciate Androidcat cleaning up the referances, but would you be able to adress if this book is notable or not?Coffeepusher (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. The book meets the notability standard based on criteria 1 and also criteria 5 of Notability_(books).  It meets criteria 1 as the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works.  For example, as AndroidCat mentions, an entire chapter in The Scandal of Scientology is devoted to it.  It is also discussed in several journals (typically negatively) including in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion  (I’ve checked the full pdf text of the article), and in the Christian Research Institute Journal .  Additionally, it also meets criteria 5, as the work of an historically significant author, L. Ron Hubbard. -- M P er el  22:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think it fits either of those criteria. for criteria 1 it needs to be the "subject" of multiple... the journal article you mentioned (the second one that we can read) only used the book as supporting evidance, and only in 1 paragraph of the article.  the first one I can't access, but it dosn't mention reincarnation or the book title anywhere in the abstract that I saw.  My interpretation of this is the book dosn't qualify as the "subject" of the article, but rather minor supporting evidance.  You do bring up 2 good sources...but again does 2 or 3=Multiple for notablility criteria (especialy considering the amout of reliable critical material avalible on scientology, if only 3 mention the book...).  Now I have heard the argument for criteria 5 before, and I stand by my old stance.  L Ron Hubbard is notable within the church, however his influence outside that circle is negligable at this time.  His theories havn't been revolutionary to the population at large, and quite frankly don't really affect socitey outside of direct contact with scientologists.  Unlike Marx, Darwin, Saint Augustine, Thomas Jefferson, his thoughts havn't spawned new theoretical works or systems of society outside of those he had direct influence over (the church of scientology).  Therefore although he is definatly famous, he is hardly a household name (my parents didn't know who he was outside of a "bad science fiction writer" direct quote) and dosn't have the influence outside the church that would be neccisary to make everything he wrote important enought to grant inclusion to wikipedia regardless of its own notablility.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * note that the subheading qualifies the number 5 criterea with the following example "For example, a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study"Coffeepusher (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2008 (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.