Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hidden Messages in Water


 * 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. Merge can be discussed separately. (non-admin closure) buidhe 15:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The Hidden Messages in Water

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This book is, obviously, abject nonsense on a stick. The question for Wikipedia is: sure, it's bollocks, but is it notable bollocks? I argue not. There are remarkably few sources about the book itself. Those we have are generally not the kinds of sources that establish notability for books. Skeptical Inquirer, for example.

In fact the sourcing on Emoto's article is also sparse and several overlap. There is really only one subject here - Masaru Emooto's nonsensical beliefs about water - and few, if any, reliable sources that address the book without addressing Emoto's methods. A merge to a single title,, seems to me to provide better overal coverage of this amusing but ultimately trivial backwater of woo. Guy (help!) 17:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep "remarkably Few", is not none. It is bollocks but looks notable, as it has been noted.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:NBOOK criteria 1. New York Times, Vox, Chicago Tribune, and Skeptical Inquirer all have articles on the subject. Yeah it is nonsense but with that many strong RS talking about it, it is notable nonsense. PackMecEng (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (WP:OTHER alert), hell I have seen books kept with fewer sources than this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Its notability is established by the sources. Dimadick (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Skeptical Inquirer is a helpful resource in the "abject nonsense" area. I appreciate Guy's strenuous action in making the page as neutral as it can be, but the sources make it an obvious keep re: notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's more that there is only one topic. This and are, in effect, one article. Guy (help!) 20:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Masaru Emoto. Having more articles than strictly necessary about nonsense just means having more places where we need to keep nonsense from growing, and while the topic of Emoto's water-woo is notable, this book is just a drop in the bucket. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Masaru Emoto per WP:NOPAGE. Sure the book passes NBOOK, but NOPAGE tells us we can cover a notable topic as part of a broader topic. As was explained, these two are really one topic. And I've had the same thought as XOR'easter that we don't want to split up topics excessively and open up more opportunities for fringe editing. Crossroads -talk- 01:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What part of NOPAGE are you referring to? Is it that the book needs broader context or hard to understand without being part of his main BLP? PackMecEng (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This: There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics...as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context...Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page. Having separate articles constitutes WP:Undue weight. We have here an author, his fringe theory, and the book he wrote to promote it. These are all one interrelated topic which should not be split up. Reader understanding is indeed improved by having the context of the other article be together with this information. Crossroads -talk- 03:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the book's article does a pretty good job showing that the subject is bunk without needing to be in the authors article. He also wrote several books on the subject should they all be covered in his article, assuming sufficient RS coverage of course? But I do not know about it not having an article to stop nonsense from growing, not sure I agree with that argument. It is established to have enough independent RS coverage to exceed requirements for a notable book, because its junk science does not change that. PackMecEng (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect to Masaru Emoto The sources given for notability of the article do not establish notability independent of the author so merging to the parent topic per WP:NOPAGE, as points out, is appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources *do* establish notability. The fact that the book is obviously full of nonsense is not a policy-based argument for deletion or merger, so far as I understand. ApLundell (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep* The book was a New York Times Bestseller, it should have a Wikipedia page. I agree that it was utter nonsense, but it was still a New York Times Bestseller. Maybe this fact tells more about the audience than the book itself. I guess this page deserves to be kept as it makes an interesting story about how a book full of nonsense became a Bestseller. There should be content on Wikipedia which can successfully object Prejudice about these bestselling lists. Inkmesh (talk) 06:38, 19 April (UTC)
 * This is not based on Wikipedia policy. See WP:INTERESTING. Crossroads -talk- 04:58, 19 April 2020 (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.