Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Keleman


 * 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. There is consensus that this subject meets WP:AUTHOR. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 04:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Stanley Keleman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An insufficiently sourced biography of a living person. This subject does not appear to have had any significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The sources we have appear to be promotional or not independent (e.g. commercial organizations related to the subject). Salimfadhley (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Still contains good amount of sources.-- 115ash →(☏) 16:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking time to review the sources, could you tell me which of the sources you think best establishes the subject's notability? This person seems to be mentioned on a number of web-sites but I was unable to find a single one that would meet our guidelines for a Reliable Source. Perhaps I missed something. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As someone with a more-than-passing knowledge of bioenergetics and body psychology I was interested in this one. The problem as the nominator points out is a lack of non-affiliated reliable sources. The article for bioenergetic analysis founder and former W. Reich disciple Alexander Lowen isn't terribly well-developed, either, but there's enough RS out there if one does a Gnews search (particularly for non-English coverage, for some reason). With Kelemen, you don't see the level of general-interest coverage but perhaps people could find evidence that he meets WP:NACADEMICS as someone influential in the body psychology field, I dunno. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Contains promotional sources, but not enough coverage from reliable independant sources. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: The most reliable sources are the NYTimes book reviews published in 1975. I have NYTimes subscription and was able to read the reviews. They do not discuss much about the subject's life, but uncritically discuss his fringe theories on metaphysics and longevity. The other sources cited in the article do not establish notability, thus it fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Delta13C (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you share some relevant extracts from the article? I think User:Northamerica1000 has a valid point that significant coverage in 1975 may still be sufficient for our notability standards. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok well that's enough. This is an academic (or pseudo, if you prefer) who's notable for his ideas, not "his life." Reliable sources don't have to be about "the subject's life," per WP:AUTHOR. If we have two bona fide NYT reviews and the SF Chronicle reviews, too, that's multiple and that's enough. We're not here to sit in judgement over whether the NYT reviews are "critical" enough, it is sufficient that that his works have been the subject of multiple reviews. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete until a better article can be made as I found some links at News and Highbeam but nothing surprisingly better. SwisterTwister   talk  05:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable author. The booksare very widely held by an array of academci libraries 931 in one case; some are published by major publishers. For an academic,and I'll judge him as an academic, this meets WP:PROF because it shows the influence of his ideas. The article does need some rewriting, but it meets the usual standard. If there are reviews of the books, it meets WP:AUTHOR as well. It is not necessary for a writer or professor that the references discuss their personal life; they rather need to discuss the factors which make for notable, and in this case it's the books.  I personally have a considerable degree of impatience with psychology work of this nature, and I regard it as a sign of incipient absurdity for anyone to derive a theory on the combined basis of Darwin and Einstein. But that shouldn't be a factor in judging the notability of the person for the purpose of a npov encycopedia .  DGG ( talk ) 08:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep more or less per DGG. Reviews of multiple books in the NYTimes are ordinarily sufficient to demonstrate notability of their author. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:AUTHOR from reviews talked of above; also ebsco shows some book reviews by Library Journal, Kirkus also has a couple -, of Living Your Dying - "In spite of some puerile reductions, this is a surprisingly provocative view of the possibilities that the new death consciousness offer us. .. It is unfortunate that Keleman mars this fascinating thesis with a simplistic section on ""self-dialogue"" -- getting in touch with our wish to die and our lifestyles; personal growth is much more complex. But he wisely and pointedly opens doors, and his book may prove an impetus to more complete studies and therapies.", and , of Your Body is Alive! - "Keleman, whose Living Your Dying (1974) attracted a good deal of praise, is a bioenergetic therapist whose commendable motives cannot be doubted, but oh, my, how he writes. .. Still, these insights degenerate with remarkable swiftness into jargon, and Keleman's heavy reliance on metaphor tends to be annoying rather than illuminating. Aren't there any bioenergeticists who can write English?" Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep – Meets WP:AUTHOR criteria #3, because the subject's works have received multiple independent reviews from reliable sources. North America1000 03:27, 1 December 2015 (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.