Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neville Goddard


 * 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. Lack of independent sources not resolved, claims of mentions by other authors not backed by references to non-trivial discussion of the subject, therefore the policy based reasons favour deletion. Guy (Help!) 17:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Neville Goddard

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a biography that has no independent sources, although it has lots of primary ones. My internet search did not turn up any of the significant and independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Since all his categories list him as a writer, I also also looked to see if he meets WP:AUTHOR, but I didn't find anything there to support a claim of notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete No independent sources and no indication of notability.131.118.229.18 (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Google Books shows a lot of mentions about him by other authors. -- Green  C  05:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you can point out sources that have significant independent coverage of him (and please add them to the article). I found a few passing mentions, but nothing to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah you can see there are more than a few by looking in Google Books, past the first page of results. "Significant" doesn't mean "long". -- Green  C  17:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In my search the first 3 pages are all his writings. Then I find his name in single sentence mentions which seems like the classic definition of "passing mentions" and not "significant independent coverage".  Show me some significant coverage and I'm quite willing to change my vote--I merely happened upon this article and noticed that it had no independent references and that he seemed to fail to meet the criteria at WP:NAUTHOR. Papaursa (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes the first few pages are his works but then there are a significant number of mentions of his name in various works including some direct assertions that he is someone of importance to some people. "Significant coverage" can mean anything including a significant number of mentions by other authors. -- Green  C  19:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Everyone is "someone of importance to some people". So far, I'm not convinced--can you give some specific examples?  The ones I looked at were not enough to convince me of his notability.  These should also be added to the article before someone else comes along and reaches the same conclusion I did.  I'm not trying to be difficult, I just need some convincing.  Until I came across this article I'd never heard of him so I have no vested interest one way or the other. Papaursa (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Papaursa, I think this person is notable and the sources are sufficient.  --  Green  C  21:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, per GreenC. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The article is entirely sourced to his own writings, and when a reasonable search fails to find secondary WP:RS sources talking about the subject, that's usually a good sign the subject isn't notable enough for an article. I request that anyone who wants to keep it give us the secondary sources that we've missed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, mentions appear to be passing in nature more than anything substantial enough to show notability or build an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable, no significant discussion in RS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2014 (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.