Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Before 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   keep. (non-admin closure)  C T J F 8 3  chat 03:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Life Before Life

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails our notability for books. In short, the only reviews are done in locations where the credulous have patting-each-other-on-the-back parties. The Journal of Parapsychology, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Philosophical Practice,  and PsycCRITIQUES are fringe journals who cannot be established as independent with respect to this guideline. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Translated into ten languages = notable.--Michael C. Price talk 20:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * Keep per Michael C. Price. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Book has been translated into ten languages, and I would expect that there would be reviews of the book in many of those languages. Johnfos (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator's quixotic war on reincarnation-related articles has now gone over the top with frivolous nominations of books that clearly are notable and thus only serve to waste other editors' time. __meco (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above points. --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly fails notability criteria. Fringe reviews and small pressings in other languages that have attracted no attention do not equal notability. This is a clear delete. Verbal chat  20:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to meet notability criteria. See also: WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above. Mitsube (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Jim Tucker. 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) 18:59, 20 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.