Talk:European Cases of the Reincarnation Type

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 June 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

Parapsychology (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParapsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject ParapsychologyTemplate:WikiProject ParapsychologyParapsychology

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Prod vs. Redirect

This article was prodded for deletion by User:Verbal with the summary "Doesn't meet any notability criteria and lacks WP:RS". I agree that the book has no independent notability, but there's an obvious redirect to the author: the book is already adequately covered in that article—Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 20:54, 5 September 2009

Of course, I have no problem with that redirect. Thanks, Verbal chat 20:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring article for notability

I've finally had a chance to get back to this. This article is now supported by book reviews in two very solid journals: the American Journal of Psychiatry, see [1], and the Journal of Psychosomatic Research which is the "Official Journal of the European Association for Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry and Psychosomatics and affiliated with the International College of Psychosomatic Medicine", see [2]. The book review in the Journal of Scientific Exploration provides material for a more general audience. So there is plenty of published material to support notability, per the Wikipedia:Notability (books) criterion which says:

"The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself..."

And I could probably dig out some more reviews if really required. -- Johnfos (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The JSE is a fringe source and doesn't establish notability. We therefore have one review. Not significant coverage in multiple RS. Verbal chat 20:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is now supported by book reviews in two scholarly journals: the American Journal of Psychiatry, see [3], and the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, see [4]. So I'm restoring the article. Johnfos (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal, I don't know why you would discount the Journal of Psychosomatic Research. It's got an impact factor of 2.540, which is quite respectable. There is also another review in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 192(7):512, 2004. Johnfos (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe reviews don't add up to much. Verbal chat 21:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come back and had a fresh look at this. Article is definitiely supported by multiple scholarly reviews, and so is notable. Removing tag. Johnfos (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this edit. Mitsube (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also support removal of the tags. User:Verbal needs to bring some evidence to the table other than his personal opinion. — goethean ॐ 19:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to show the topic meets the criteria. Verbal chat 20:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article is definitely supported by multiple scholarly reviews, and so is notable. Johnfos (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please give these "multiple scholarly reviews" which meet our standards and please specify which notability criteria are met and how they are met. In the meantime I have suggested a bold fix. If this is not acceptable, please restore the tag until this is resolved. Verbal chat 20:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is supported by book reviews in several very solid journals: the American Journal of Psychiatry, see [5], and the Journal of Psychosomatic Research which is the "Official Journal of the European Association for Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry and Psychosomatics and affiliated with the International College of Psychosomatic Medicine", see [6]. The book review in the Journal of Scientific Exploration provides material for a more general audience. So there is plenty of published material to support notability, per the Wikipedia:Notability (books) criterion which says:

"The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself..."

-- Johnfos (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear that the late Remy J. Cadoret was in fact an independent source. While he was clearly an established authority on the psychology of addiction, he seems also to have been an officer of the Parapsychological Association, though there is at present no inline citation given for that. If so, his book review in Am J Psychiatry must be taken with salt. That the review did not disclose this would be more than a little troubling.

In any case, the article lede does not make any assertion of notability. It should say why the book is notable. Please note also that WP:Notability (books)#Academic books has slightly different criteria from those for the general press. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much speculation there. I don't believe that European Cases of the Reincarnation Type is an academic book; my local public library bought a copy and McFarland & Company is not an academic press. I don't think there is any problem with the Cadoret review or Cadoret's credentials. And I forgot to mention that there is also a third scholarly review in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 192(7):512, 2004. The article lead section used to have more about notability until it was trimmed here. Johnfos (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean that the lede should tell a reader why the subject matters to them. No reader thinks books are more interesting simply because they've been reviewed. Every author has a final work, so that hardly makes it more interesting. What did the reviewers find interesting about the book? What further significant works were built upon it? That is what people mean by a "seminal work" after all. It's why academics pay so much attention to citations. They document the genealogy of ideas, ensuring that original thought gets acknowledged. If the Gross review says something about the book which would be useful to the article, what is it? Why not use it?

About 11% of what McFarland publishes is scholarly work, so that they were the publisher really tells us nothing. And while it might just be possible that everything in your public library might be exceptionally frivolous, even the smallest one that I've ever gone into has had a mix of material, including serious academic and reference works on a wide variety of topics. I'd be willing to bet you'll find that yours does too if you check. So that they bought a copy also tells us very little about this book, (not to mention being inadmissible as unpublished original research).

We don't build an encyclopedia article about a book by simply finding writings about the book. We have to read those writings, select representative and useful portions, then rephrase and cite them to avoid plagiarism. To make an article worth reading, there has to be actual content. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is really quite a long rant. What are you trying to say, in a sentence or two... Johnfos (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In short: your prior statement is full of holes. Just do the work or quit whining.LeadSongDog come howl! 04:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This pattern is not uncommon on WP. When an POV-pushing editor fails in his bid to get his views accepted, and is no longer able to present logical argument, he resorts to criticism of those who express views different to his. It is a pity really. Johnfos (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that you are no longer able to present logical argument, as evidenced by your choice to call my argument a "rant". If you at some time are again feeling up to it, such discussion is always welcome. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD proposed

I think it could be useful if this article could be taken to AfD, and I would be happy to do so when the article is unlocked. In this way we could get some wider community input on the notability issue and whether or not the article is to be kept. Who knows, perhaps community consensus may be to delete the article... Johnfos (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you or anyone would like to write a deletion statement here or at my talkpage, I can post a procedural nomination now. You could probably also just nominate the article yourself and request that someone add the tag either there or here with {{editprotected}}. Note: I have not been involved at this article, but should be considered WP:INVOLVED. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for volunteering to add AfD tags on request. For my part I will defer until the article is unlocked. But if someone else wishes to move ahead more quickly, that's fine... Johnfos (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Cases of the Reincarnation Type. Johnfos (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]