Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Past life regression


 * 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   Snowball keep. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Past life regression

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

This article is a mess! I know that AfD is not cleanup, but when an article is comprised almost solely of original research and POV and is on an unencyclopedic, possibly non-notable topic, what else is there to do? No secondary non-trivial sources that are independent of the group that promotes this concept. This might also be a WP:COI. What do you think? Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 02:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge into Hypnosis. Original research and POV are big problems with the article, but I feel that its subject could easily be summarized and included as a theory about hypnotism held by some to be true. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Whether one thinks that "past life regression" is "real", or "real stupid", the topic certainly is notable  .  If the problem is "poor sourcing" (I don't agree), then there's a plethora of verifiable sources to draw from.  Nominator is correct that AfD is not cleanup.  Mandsford (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is certainly a notable topic. The article is not so bad. At least it attempts to treat the subject seriously and neutrally. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject is covered by plenty of WP:RS. POV can be fixed (starting here  for some skeptical sources would be a good idea.) gnfnrf (talk)
 * Keep - the subject is certainly notable and well-documented. The article is sourced and pretty well-written. I don't believe in past lives, but that's no reason to want it gone. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Cleanup. Sources exist. Notability exists. The article can be fixed.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I disagree that the subject is non-notable, original research or POV. I personally don't believe that PLR is a real effect but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a balanced, explanatory WP article about it. As regards to a more neutral treatment, here is another paper I suggested in the article's talk: M Schröter-Kunhardt (1996). Reinkarnationsglaube und Reinkarnationstherapie: Eine transpersonale Fiktion. Transpersonale Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 67-83 reprint. (Belief in reincarnation and reincarnation therapy: a transpersonal fiction). --EPadmirateur (talk) 05:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article may have issues, but is certainly a notable topic given its popularity in the media.  NPOV will be hard to balance, but there are certainly going to be sources available.  Topic is covered in some detail in a Thomson Gale encyclopedia in a relatively neutral, skeptical manner.  --Clay Collier (talk) 10:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - subject is dumb, but as the sources already cited demonstrate, quite notable. Wily D 13:20, 14 November 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.