Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Healing of the Nations


 * 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 No consensus. I admit to feeling that many arguments here on both sides of the debate are ill-conceived and don't really apply. The article is not very good (reference to answers.com; "written by a 22-year-old": if he was born in 1828, he would have been 26-27 in 1855, etc), but that is of no concern here. James500 mentions different books (but didn't include those in the article nor are any bibliographic details provided here). GNG states that coverage is need in "reliable sources" plural, which by anybody else I know is interpreted as "more than one". GNG also explicitly states "multiple sources are generally expected". ("generally" here meaning that exceptions will be rare and have to have a solid rationale - more solid than IAR). Notinherited has nothing to do with the senator's endorsement: if there is a reliable source that this senator indeed endorsed the book, then we have a RS. That the senator is notable adds to the reliability of the source. However, the endorsement is currently unattributed in the article. In all, I find neither the "delete" nor the "keep" arguments convincing and therefore close this as "no consensus". If good sources are not added to the article in, say, the next month, no prejudice to renewed listing at AfD. Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The Healing of the Nations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria of WP:GNG or of the more specific WP:NBOOKS, particularly that of significant coverage in multiple sources. Nor does the looser common sense approach for non-contemporary books support IMO claims of notability. All claims in the article of notability appear to be cases of inherited notability (eg an endorsement from a well-known senator). FyzixFighter (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, Fails WP:NBOOKS, while searching for the subject there were hardly any resources that supports.Ireneshih (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems to have received coverage, in particular, in two books by Frank Podmore (both reprinted by Cambridge University Press) and one by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. GNG doesn't actually require multiple sources in absolute terms and such a requirement would, frankly, be absurd. Seems to have gone through multiple editions, which is normally an indicator of popularity. NOTINHERITED is only an essay and one that expressly states that it is not necessarily applicable to books. Why should it apply to the senator's endorsement? Why can't this topic be redirected to a broader article on psuedo biblicism or the history of spiritualism? James500 (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The only case of inherited notability that NBOOKS allows for is when the book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable (criterion #5). I don't think an endorsement by someone notable falls into this category. Notability does not necessarily depend on things such as popularity (multiple editions, a change only recently added to the NBOOKS), although it may enhance the acceptability of a subject after it has been shown to meet the the notability guidelines. For me in this case the plurality of sources is less important than the requirement for significant coverage, which is lacking in this case. Also, I would disagree with you on GNG requiring mulitple sources - see the fifth bullet in WP:WHYN, which starts "We require multiple sources so that...". --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (1) NBOOKS has always mentioned reprints which is very obviously a measure of popularity. In fact the word "reprint" is, in that context, broad enough to include a new edition anyway, especially bearing in mind the standard of the drafting of that guideline. It certainly wouldn't make any sense at all to consider facsimilie reprints but not new editions, as that would be completely inconsistent. The present wording of the guideline doesn't specify any particular number of editions. It doesn't say that two editions are enough. We did have an RfC, as yet unimplemented, that decided that "bestsellers" were notable, so popularity does matter. (2) The footnotes to GNG explicitly state that multiple sources are not absolutely required in all cases. (3) I cannot agree that inherited notability is only allowed by criteria 5. The criteria for non-contemporary books invite us to use "common sense". Inherited notability is compatible with common sense. A purportedly exhaustive list of notability criteria is not compatible with common sense, because it will inevitably omit something important. (4) Leaving individual notability aside, why can't all these articles on books you are nominating for deletion be merged into a bibliography of psuedo-biblicism, as such books must surely collectively satisfy LISTN as a group? James500 (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Of the possible redirect candidates, IMO List of books in the style of the King James Bible is the preferable candidate. Pseudo-Biblicism has too many issues, not the least of which is that it is essentially a WP:COATRACK by the creating editor to try and legitimize/advertise the editor's own amateur research (see, ). There's a few other things but this might not be the proper forum. I think a trimmed "Pseudo-biblicism" however would make a good lede section for the formerly mentioned "List of...". --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:20, 12 November 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 12:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep "I like it" isn't a good reason. I'm not using it. But, I feel that this should be kept. I've never read it, and I'm unlikely to - but I have heard of it. It's still available (rather expensively) through Amazon and I think it's (cheaply) on Google books. The book may be twaddle (most 'spirit' written text and music is), but it's of note. WP:IAR. Peridon (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems weird/obscure but oddly important, and seems notable.  I find this "review" / endorsement in a Google book 1901 by David Newport as an early Google hit in searching on ""The Healing of the Nations" -wikipedia Linton".  Seems like it was historically influential in many persons lives.  It's a stretch but maybe like "Ivanhoe" (1820), arguably a nonsense book, was in fact important to many (and inflated U.S. southern chivalric ideals before, and tragically contributing to, the U.S. Civil War).  Or Uncle Tom's Cabin, 1852, also arguably nonsense relative to what would be acceptable now, contributing to the Northern side of war.  I don't know which side "Healing" was on, if either.  But what people read then matters. -- do  ncr  am  03:37, 27 November 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.