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 delete.  Sandstein  11:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clairvoyance (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks independent sourcing to establish notability/allow a neutral article. Alexbrn (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NBOOK. Dlabtot (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Dlabtot, I think you meant to link WP:NBOOK. Alsee (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. Dlabtot (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've explored this topic and there isn't enough reliable sources to write an article about this book. The author is notable but the book is not. Any significant article will have to be based on original research. KarlPoppery (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless better sources can be found. Many of the sources in the article are about the concept of clairvoyance, with no connection to this book itself. My searching was suggestive that sources might exist, and we're supposed to keep articles if sources exist-but-haven't-been-included, however "might exist" isn't good enough. My searching suggests that if sources exist they are likely to be unreliable or otherwise problematical themselves. Without better sourcing any article here article is going to crash badly against OR/SYN or other policies. The current state of the article, and history versions, well illustrates the problem. The article is essentially unreadable and the sources and notes are a disaster. Alsee (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. For clarity: An article that "needs to be fixed" is not a good reason to delete, but an article that "can't be fixed" without better sources is a good reason. Alsee (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - According to: Robert Ellwood, PhD; Gregory Tillett, PhD; Philip Harris, general editor of the Theosophical Encyclopedia; Chelsea Jones, M.A.; and Karen Brown (she teaches creative writing and literature at the University of South Florida) this Leadbeater's monograph is an important book. SERGEJ2011 (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we would be wanting independent, non-fringe sources. Are there any? Alexbrn (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable "book" -Roxy the dog. bark 07:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.