Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Near-birth experience


 * 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. In a vote, this would be closed as no consensus; however, after examining the arguments presented by each side, reading the article, and preforming a Google search, I've determined that the subject is notable enough to warrant inclusion within Wikipedia. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Near-birth experience

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

Almost complete WP:BOLLOCKS, this article is essentially about obscure ideas that have not received the notice of third-party independent sources. The books that are used as "references" are simply books about psychic communication with your baby or regression psychoanalysis. No need for this kooky article: we can include the "information" elsewhere. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  —Artw (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * keep Another WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. Artw (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator appears to be proposing to merge the article, but doesn't say where to.  A merge discussion should be considered on the article's talk page.  I note that the article suffers from NPOV and OR problems (it reports fringe theories as real occurrences and uses real scientific evidence in an argument to support the theories without attributing the argument itself to a reliable source), but these problems can be fixed without deleting the article. JulesH (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, as said WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a criterion for deletion. It may well be bollocks, but it is certainly highly published bollocks, and as such, still notable.- Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 10:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Out of Body experiences are notable.  Birth is notable.  Birth involves extreme physical stress.  Extreme physical stress is a recognized catalyst for OBE reports.  The web has no shortage of childbirth-specific OBE reports.  WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  K2709 (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - IDONTLIKEIT may not be grounds for deletion, but the serious notability and OR issues are, as that is all an article on this subject appears likely to ever be.  There's nothing in this article that represents a solid foundation to improve upon, so deletion is the way to go here.  ClovisPt (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OR? There are four sources as it is, and try doing a Google search. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 16:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The term definitely exists, but it is not consistently well-defined. A few authors appear to use it in conflicting idiosyncratic ways. Maybe this is enough to have an article covering the several definitions, but I would rather wait until the movement coalesces ... or does not. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, as said WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NEUTRAL requires to represent a variety of views, specifically if there are reliable sources as is clearly the case confirming notability. Possibly needs to merge to avoid forking if will not grow in time. Wikidās ॐ 18:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Shouldn't there at least be some third party coverage? This is orderline original research.--Peephole (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is original research since the topic has not been the subject of verifiable, third-party, reliable sources. -Atmoz (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Can not be OR since it is the same title as quite a few publications. it gives about 600 exact hits even in Google books and ten times as much in Google. It could be a kuku science, but is certainly covered by some sufficient sources to stay, question if you were to merge it, where will you merge it into. Wikidās ॐ 19:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Somewhat sad, but this seems notable. As we have to allow articles about UFO's and the like, we need to keep articles about subjects like this which, while probably bollocks, has enough sources to demonstrate notability.  The   Seeker 4   Talk  20:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)DGG (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - A WP:SYNTH fusion of material from books by three authors, not one of whom rises to the level of notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Nonsense, but there seem to be sources for it. With respect to some of the arguments: The references for an article do not have to be notable, We make Wp articles precisely by describing material found elsewhere--this is not OR. A Wikipedia article topic does not have to be the subject of academic sources of the sort found in Google Scholar--most of Wikipedia will not be found there. And not looking notable equals IDONTLIOKEIT. DGG (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, the references do have to have some level of notability (as defined by WP:RS). If a subject attracts no interest outside four books in its immediate context, there is absolutely no reason to have a separate article about that concept. If I start an article about myself, I have to prove that there are sources outside my own blog and fan-site who indicate what my significance is [before you ask: I don't have either a blog or a fan site]. Dahn (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete SYNTHy and doesn't look at all notable Sceptre (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and stubify or otherwise indicate this covers a fringe area. It meets WP:N with sources in the article.  But the article would lead one to believe that this is commonly accepted theory.  Hobit (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no valid, scientific sources. - Biruitorul Talk 01:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Obscurely marginal, even within the fringe context of parapsychology. No notability outside this context. Whatever take parapsychologists have on the matter could be merged as curiosa into Pre-birth communication (which is currently a poor excuse for an article, but maybe someone will pay interest). I can see it hanging in some corner there, together with, say, Salvador Dalí's claim to have experienced such things. Dahn (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not a science encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be the sum of all knowledge including fringe topics. Besides, sources are available to establish the notability of this subject, Google Books. --J.Mundo (talk) 13:28, 24 February 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.