Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Occult: A History


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 04:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Occult: A History

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I'm not seeing any reviews for this non-fiction book. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Online reviews of a 1971 book tend to be awkward to find. Wilson himself describes it as "a best-seller in England and America" which, leaving aside tendencies to hyperbole, indicates that evidence may be out there. AllyD (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wilson's book is described as "a popular reference" here; a Google Books search shows evidence of a (negative) TLS review in 1971 and also various references to this book in others' books. This Guardian article mentions the book's influence on David Bowie. AllyD (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked though the Guardian article and saw where it was mentioned that the author had an influence, but not specifically this book. Considering how popular this book seems to have been, it's likely that this was a book he'd read, but the article didn't seem to mention it in specific so we can't use that to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "...Colin Wilson, whose 1971 history of the occult was read and absorbed" felt quite specific to me? But I agree: using the fact that David Bowie read the book would feel like hanging a bauble on a tree rather than demonstrating that the tree as substantial roots. AllyD (talk) 07:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm slogging through JSTOR, although I can only do so much during school hours. I did find a lengthy review by Joyce Carol Oates and I also see where it has come up in relation to other journals, possibly being used as a source. I'll try to look through those when I get a chance.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone has a way to access it, it looks like the work is mentioned in a "Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research" volume. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep Well-known book. Enough references to establish notability.  Tigerboy1966  18:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's enough sources to show notability now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough notability to merit a wiki article for this book. --Artene50 (talk) 05:33, 18 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.