Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Souls


 * 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 03:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Old Souls

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails our notability guideline for books: WP:BK. There is a single review from Publisher's Weekly which is not enough to establish the book as being encyclopedic. All other reviews are not from independent sources and the lack of critical reception and outside notice makes the article on this book worth deleting. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies WP:BK and WP:N.  To be clear: my response here is not about the topic of reincarnation, it's about a biographical report by an investigative journalist and editor of the Washington Post. Notability of the book is sufficient for an article. It has been cited in more than 30 other books .  The book has been mentioned in multiple articles about Ian Stevenson, who was an academic psychiastrist and was the subject of the book, examples include the New York Times and Psychaiatry Online.  The book is listed with non-trivial commentary in the New York University School of Medicine Literature, Arts, and Medicine Database.  In Australia,  ABC National Radio's Late Night Live ran a program featuring an interview with the author about this book.  More examples are available if anyone wants to search, but I stopped at the above because they are sufficient to establish notability.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep sources do not have themselves have to be encyclopedic. Ridiculous gibberish.--Michael C. Price talk 20:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 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. I recognize this is a different sort of book than the two above, but I think it still should be handled that way.  DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sorry I don't follow. Exactly which article are you suggesting Old Souls be merged with? Johnfos (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources appear adequate to establish notability. __meco (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources are adequate. Johnfos (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above points. --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete poor sources and does not meet notability criteria. Verbal chat  20:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to meet notability requirement. See also: WP:BATTLE. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good sources for notability. Mitsube (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ian Stevenson 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) 18:58, 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.