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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neville Lancelot Goddard (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)

This author appears to only have notice among believers who share his mystical outlook. As he is a proponent of certain WP:FRINGE beliefs, to establish his notability per WP:NFRINGE we would need to have some independent sources that identified his works or biography as particularly notable. I do not think we have that. Instead, we have a niche author whose ideas are so obscure and lack regard that only those who are in that particular community find his writings at all relevant... at least it appears that way to me when I look for independent assertions of notability. jps (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neville Goddard which I believe is still relevant to this page in spite of the fact that the speedy was declined. jps (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The book Magician of the Beautiful: An Introduction to Neville Goddard was published in 2019 by Gildan Media: i.e. not self-published. StAnselm (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book above seems to be in-universe, along with that author's other publications, which does not establish notability. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 18:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Anything written by Mitch Horowitz needs to be considered only reliable for what Mitch Horowitz believes. It cannot establish independent notability of a claim about New Thought supernatural mumbo jumbo. jps (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That isn't actually what "in universe" means, though. StAnselm (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:INUNIVERSE is usually reserved for fiction, but it's not hard to see how it would apply to a cult of likeminded believers who behave much-like a fanclub creating WP:CRUFT. The text of the article is written "in universe", and if all the sources are also written "in universe", generally we don't use such sources. An interesting point may be had, however, that we might want to have an essay on the synergy between "in universe" and "independence". jps (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suppose I should have wroten "true believer" and I still could if y'all wouldn't mind me re-jigging the letters a little bit? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 22:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Mitch Horowitz is an interesting fellow, however. He's the kind of true believer who really hates most conspiracy theories. He also seems to take the Forteana approach that all occult ideas are worth entertaining -- as long as they aren't hateful. jps (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 18:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because reliable sources are lacking. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:NAUTHOR, and useful for historical reference. I did a few searches and don't think this is a non-notable author. Ambrosiawater (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not meet WP:NAUTHOR nor WP:NFRINGE, for lack of reliable, independent sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I found these sources in peer-reviewed journals about Goddard:

• Walton, Jonathan L. (2011). "The Greening of the Gospel (and Black Body): Rev. Ike's Gospel of Wealth and Post-Blackness Theology". Pneuma. 33 (2): 181–199. doi:10.1163/027209611X575005. ISSN 0272-0965.
• Horowitz, Mitch (2019-11-13). "The New Age and Gnosticism: Terms of Commonality". Gnosis: Journal of Gnostic Studies. 4 (2): 191–215. doi:10.1163/2451859X-12340073. ISSN 2451-8581.
• And, if anyone reads Italian: Giurdanella, Marco (2010). Neville Goddard (1905–1972) e il Nuovo Pensiero (Laurea thesis) (in Italian). University of Catania.
• And, although I can access fancy academic journals, I don't have access to this article in The New Yorker—contemporary profile of Goddard mentioned in this slightly fringy Horowitz publication: Coates, Robert M. (1943-09-04). "A Blue Flame on the Forehead". The New Yorker.
• And, for an indication of Goddard's influence (obvi not proof of WP:N on its own): Martin Braithwaite likes Goddard.

Mitch Horowitz seems like a possibly fringey source because he publishes both in real journals like the one above and some more questionable venues. But I'd say Gnosis is an RS, given that it's peer-reviewed. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources identified by AleatoryPonderings. The New Yorker article is clearly RS coverage, and Pneuma is peer-reviewed. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1E70:A340:560:ABFF:2FFB:B2B1 (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the reasons stated by AleatoryPonderings and ToughPigs. The 1943 New Yorker article by Robert M. Coates occupies about 9 full columns spread across 8 pages of the original text edition of the magazine. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are topics I personally think are complete nonsense - like Iridology. But I recognize WP:NPOV requires me to ignore my personal conclusions when evaluating a topic's notability. When good faith contributors find and neutrally cite genuine reliable sources about Iridology, and other topics from my least favourite topics list, I will defend the articles on those topics at AFD. It doesn't matter if I think Godard sounds like a kook, or if other contributors here think he sounds like a kook, since it looks like good faith contributors found and neutrally cited genuine reliable sources that establish he measures up to GNG. Geo Swan (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to ((ping)) @Roxy the dog, Psychologist Guy, and K.e.coffman:, as it seems their deletes may have been made before more RS were added to the article. Geo Swan (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have been studying Neville's work and teaching for over five years. I also am a writer and teacher with two masters degrees, so I know a little about vetting sources. Sadly, one thing I have noticed around the "culture" of his teaching is that it is misinterpreted, misrepresented, misunderstood, and that there are very few solid fact-based articles about him online which don't "spin the facts" by integrating his teachings. While I've found experiential validity in those teachings, nonetheless, what has been needed is a Wikipedia or similar article with precisely the tone and authority of this entry. Those who draw conculsions from Neville's teachings or use them for other means will do so regardless of the content of this article, but an article like this is needed to at least ground the teachings in fact. From this, others may proceed as they wish, and they will, but at least this clear, concise, vetted and cited, fact-based article is a grounding point for any ridiculous misrepresentation, misunderstanding, or misinterpretation that may (and will) follow. 64.25.212.202 (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Max Shenk[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.