Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NBeale (talk | contribs) at 07:51, 27 January 2008 (→The Creation of Human Ability). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Creation of Human Ability

The Creation of Human Ability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Only one source given is not self-referential. Notability not established in secondary sources. Prod was removed, so taking to AfD. There is only one source in the article (Corydon) which is not a primary source, self-referential source (i.e. Scientology.org). Even the Corydon source does not refer to this book specifically, just books in general "these books..."). If this book is notable and is discussed and anaylzyed in secondary sources - that is not evident or asserted in the article's present state. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 04:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - nominator is woefully ignorant of subject area he is mass-nominating; these deletions should be struck as examples of sincere but ignorant bureaucratisation - David Gerard (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Saying Nominator is woefully ignorant of subject area is rude, an assumption and you have no idea what I do or do not know, and has nothing to do with whether or not the subject matter is covered enough in secondary sources to assert notability. 12:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC). Cirt (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • It's clear you don't know much if anything from your choices for mass-nomination. While I don't at all question your sincerity, I fear I must question your judgement. "Notability" and sourcing are guidelines, and this is an example of why - you do appear to have gone through a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise when mass-nominating, rather than applying subject-area knowledge. As such, you should reasonably expect to have this pointed out - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• For your information, I have knowledge of the subject matter. I was putting that knowledge aside, because according to Misplaced Pages:Notability, notability is assessed through coverage in other sources. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Well? Has the subject of this article received such coverage in independent WP:RS sources? Where? Which sources? That would be a much better AfD "Keep" rationale than going after the nominator. Cirt (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
• Keep - the comments on the part of people who are knowledgeable about the subject are persuasive to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment

If enough evidence can be shown that there is significant coverage of this subject in independent secondary sources, I will withdraw my nomination and close this AfD myself. Cirt (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• 'Keep Croydons general mention is sufficient sourcing for this one. DGG (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Response: -- But Corydon does not mention The Creation of Human Ability in his book. Cirt (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
    • (I amended my statement, in italics)DGG (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I see that - so Corydon's mention of "A special "Book Mission" was sent out to promote these books, now empowered and made irresistible by the addition of these supposedly overwhelming symbols or images." - makes any book notable and encapsulated under the phrase "these books" ? That is WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability or coverage from Reliable Sources. NBeale (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates