Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Body Electric (book)


 * 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. Consensus is to keep ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The Body Electric (book)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Essentially just a recreation of the article here. This recreation has the same issues as the first one. It does not demonstrate notability, contains large amounts of undue material and original research etc. We have the same issues as the previous article. To avoid confusion I will note that there are numerous similarly titled books. Steps I went to check notability:
 * Google scholar, I checked "The body electric". All of the hits (except a citation to the book) in the first few pages were unrelated to the book so I stopped looking.
 * Google scholar again, I checked "The body electric" Becker in the hopes of getting relevant hits, I found some citations but mostly in articles of dubious quality.
 * Google Books: The first few pages were books of the same or similar name by different authors, to narrow the search down I added Becker to the start: All I found were numerous unreliable fringe publications.
 * Google search: nothing relevant
 * I checked the sources in the article itself, there is only one inline citation,

All in all the book fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG

The article pre-AfD: for reference. As a side arguement: the article in itself would need a complete re-write to be encyclopedic, most of the article is a non-critical paraphrasing of the book and includes numerous fringe claims such as warning of the dangers of EMF fields without putting the mainstream perspective even slightly in view: His contention (supported by much evidence he presents) is that the experts choosing the pollution limits are strongly influenced by the polluting industry, the article also contains OR unrelated to the book about the dangers of EMF; This notion is supported by a comparison with Eastern Europe, where the research done by more independent scientists led to far stricter emission limits, The article also openly admits to being a synthesis of primary sources that aren't directly connected with the article when it states that: Other primary sources: The papers listed in the article Robert O. Becker. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The AMSA listing as a classic along with the NYT review is sufficient to show the notability of the book. The article needs some considerable cutting, to maybe 1/3 the length, but that's easy enough; I've done about half of it already.   DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * AMSA's helps to expose medical students to information on subjects not generally covered in traditional curricula, aka it represents non-mainstream teaching. Your reference to AMSA listing it as a classic is on this website, note that the website isn't AMSA but a website for Advanced Biofeedback & Energetic Medicine, AMSA appear to have discontinued the course. The course was also on Bioenergic Medicines which aimed to help students, amongst other things, understand the concept of subtle energy, the vital force, qi, and prana. Basically I don't think being in an alternative medicine course book list helps towards notability. Specifically I don't think point 4 of NBOOK: The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country is met for the follow reasons:
 * 1. The course appears to have been cancelled (it's from 10 years ago).
 * 2. The course is not mainstream and so would feature more non-notable fringe works
 * 3. It's a single course, NBOOK mentions requiring courses
 * 4. The book isn't the main book for the class but appears to be extra reading.
 * IRWolfie- (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have removed the claim about AMSA from the article because I believe it is misleading, though I did find a copy of the cited document on amsa.org. See the talk page for more details. Dricherby (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Cheers for the extra clarification (which can be found here: ). IRWolfie- (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not easy to search in Google Scholar, as the 1855 poetry book "I sing the body electric" is difficult to avoid. How to search: Search for the combination The body electric and Becker and Selden. The first result is the correct book. Now click at this entry to get the 454 papers quoting this book. This is not OR - just standard literature search.

The article had to be recreated as it had been totally annihilated, but it is completely rewritten. It has two parts: First the lead for a necessary demonstration of notability, and then a book synopsis. This was quite short for a 350 page text. No OR. It should be explained what is undue about this synopsis. Becker's opinion about electromagnetic pollution is supported by an EU report. I am open to suggestions from unbiased, rationally thinking editors if they think Becker's findings require corroboration. I should have described the other sources as peer-reviewed publications - accepted by expert editors. OlavN (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Google scholar citatations are irrelevant as they are from unreliable sources. Also note WP:GOOGLEHITS. This EU report does not mention Becker and it is OR to link it to the topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Apparent WP:FRINGE, but several of those GS citations are reliable. -- 202.124.73.7 (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Having a few citations doesn't help meet WP:NBOOK. Also note that the vast vast majority of citations of the book are not reliable, (the ones you may be considering reliable appear to be alternative medicine publications). edit: but anyway, we don't declare book to be notable based on citation counts. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Electrotherapy. The book does seem to be significant in that field but I've not managed to find very much notability in the book itself (as distinct from the ideas it advances). There are plenty of citations to this book in reputable scientific journals (e.g.,, , ). Of these, I was only able to read the second for free and it's pretty typical of scientific citations: "Static and fluctuating electromagnetic fields have been applied with apparent success for the management of pain in a variety of orthopedic conditions, most commonly traumatic bone fractures or surgical osteotomies.9-11" where the three cited works are this book, another book by Becker and a paper by other authors; I think that's the only mention of the book in that article. This is fairly typical of scientific citations: they're unlikely to discuss the book in the sort of detail required by criterion 1 of WP:NBOOK; they tend to give a summary of at most one or two sentences.  However, the book did seem to attract some media attention when it was published, though all of this is paywalled so I've not been able to judge how substantial it is: LA Times and a "brief review" in the New York Times is mentioned in this letter to the editor.  Since availability of 1980s newspapers on the web isn't great, it's possible that it received more attention than that. There are also a couple of articles in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel   from 1987 which include comments from Becker and might also include some discussion of the book. If somebody who has access to these various newspaper articles can evaluate them, I might change to a week keep. Dricherby (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The review is in the article currently in the sources section, it appears to be behind a paywall, from the bit that is shown I don't see any critical commentary required per WP:NBOOK, note that thhe sun-sentinel sources are both by the same person and I would harazard a guess that there is not sufficient mention. On a side note, it seems strange to me that though to say it is an academic book but then we have newspaper reviews, this would suggest it is pop-sci. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems a little unusual for a scientific book to be cited by papers and reviewed by the media but I'm not sure it means much. It's described as a summary of the authors' research and I imagine it's possible to write such a summary in language that would be mostly accessible to the lay-person without too much compromise of rigour. Dricherby (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The cover of the book quotes from a review in San Francisco Chronicle: "An astounding, thought-provoking book." Could the publisher be lying about this contemporary review?  The eighties is a long time ago, so we can't expect much to be available on Internet. Shall history (eventually making e.g. AMSA study lists outdated) be purged?  OlavN (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Without seeing the actual review, there's no way to know if it's a substantial review (as would be required by WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK) or just a passing remark. Please see the comments above about AMSA. The book was never on an "AMSA study list": it appeared in the bibliography of a document giving recommendations for designers of curricula in "bioelectric medicine". Did anyone ever designed such a curriculum, let alone teach it and recommend that their students read the book? Dricherby (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Also reviewed in Kirkus, Library Journal (Reiser F, Fletcher J, Fialkoff F, Schwarzer A, Sutton J, Cameron J. The Body Electric (Book). Library Journal [serial online]. February 15, 1985;110(3):174.) and Sciences (Adey W. THE ENERGY AROUND US. Sciences [serial online]. January 1986;26(1):52.) Google Search and Google Books indicate it was widely discussed in the 80s and since. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What search terms were you searching with? All I saw was self published and fringe rubbish in google search and google books. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If we can get a few more decent reviews notability will be satisfied. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Notable book, meets WP:GNG. Many book search sources on google refer to it as a "pioneering" work.  I see many sources refers to it as a "bestseller" though I cannot confirm how accurate that is in a quick search.--Milowent • hasspoken  03:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * These are not reliable sources, the first book aims to integrate the diverse concerns of ecofeminism, holistic health, alternative education, the New Physics, spirtual pathways and extraterrestrial contact into a coherent worldview whilst the second is another fringe book, Zapped: Why Your Cell Phone Shouldn't Be Your Alarm Clock and 1,268 Ways to Outsmart the Hazards of Electronic Pollution which claims that Invisible pollution surrounds us twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, interrupting our bodies’ natural flow of energy. For reference, here is the notability criteria for books: WP:BKCRIT. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because these books are fringe doesn't mean they are making it up that the book was popular. Pop-culture science is full of popular books about baloney.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That is irrelevant, what is important is if it's notable, and this needs to be indicated by either A. significant coverage in reliable sources, or B. meeting the WP:NBOOK criteria, being featured in some fringe books (which aren't reliable sources) doesn't help with that. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Numerous references in books is something to consider for notability. Its not clear to me you have perspective on 1980s pop-science fads, of which this was part?  Some of sources of the time, already found by other editors, confirm its notability.  This may not be as notable as baloney like the Jupiter Effect, but its still notable.--Milowent • hasspoken  16:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Numerous non-trivial mentions in reliable sources sure (per GNG), but I don't think in unreliable fringe publications which by their very nature tend to discuss obscure topics. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm worried that your argument seems to be The Body Electric is fringe, therefore anything that discusses it is fringe, therefore anything that discusses it is not a reliable source, therefore it is not notable. By the same argument, no fringe theory is notable. The second of the books that Milowent linked was published by HarperCollins and I don't think it's so easily dismissed. Dricherby (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you actually checked the book out? Here is a review of the second of the books, Zapped which was mentioned by Dricherby above :, the zinger at the end: If you're worried about the dangers of EMFs, wait for a more credible source than this one.. Also another paragraph: she brings up nonscientific concepts like chi and prana and claims, on page 9, that medicines heal us of illness because of the frequencies they emit, not due to their physical or chemical properties. Her adherence to the unproven concepts of traditional Chinese medicine puts the science she presents later in the book on uncertain footing. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC) I've added text in italics to avoid confusion as to what book I was talking aboutIRWolfie- (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The quality of the book is irrelevant to its notability. WP is not a book review site, where we evaluate the quality of books. If RSs review the book, then it's notable--no matter whether notable good or notably awful. (What we can do, though, is quote a fair representative summary sentence from a review) DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about the Body Electric itself here, I was talking about the Book called Zapped which was referred to above as being a reliable source. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Zapped! did have some fringe science, but OH what a fringe.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether Zapped is scientifically accurate; the question is whether the cite in it that the b.e. is a " time-honored classic" shows notability; reliable in this sense means editorially discriminating in some sensible manner between different books, and it does discriminate: it is one of the 2 listed. The book is independent, published by a division of Harpers and is in 300 libraries. I agree b.e. is fringe science, but it's notable fringe science.  DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Reliable" is not a binary determination. Just because a source is not a reliable source for scientific fact, it may be a reliable source for describing the beliefs of certain (fringe) people.
 * I don't understand why a fringe publication wouldn't be acceptable for establishing the notability of a fringe subject. APL (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as not being covered in significant depth by independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2012 (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.