- 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 of the debate was delete. – Avi 16:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Complete Story of the Course[edit]
This article's references mainly refer to another book and the entire article is unverifiable original research.
Please see the analysis on this permanent link to the talk page of the article. In the analysis each statement of the article is analyzed. Ste4k 05:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I contest the accusation that this page is "Original Research". This page contains the following citations:
^ Publishers Weekly article about Disappearance of the Universe Retrieved June 30, 2006
^ Foundation for Inner Peace translation article Retrieved June 30, 2006
^ Miracle Distribution Center study group list Retrieved June 30, 2006
^ Foundation for Inner Peace "Scribing of the Course" article Retrieved June 30, 2006
^ Attitudinal Healing homepage June 30, 2006
I have provided a link to the publisher of this book [1], and a picture of the book itself. The article hardly says anything beyond what is verifiable in other places. You may not like the sources I've provided, BUT FOR GOD'S SAKE WILL YOU ADMIT THAT I'VE PROVIDED SOME? I'm getting sick of you ignoring this.
Further, if you all think that these books do not deserve their own pages, could I make an article about the most notable books on Course commentary? Where exactly would the rest of you be comfortable with these references? Should I make a small section on the main A Course In Miracles page?
Oh, and I think the article should be kept (obviously) because it is notable for being the only journalistic overview of the entire ACIM movement. -- Andrew Parodi 07:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case the entire ACIM movement is almos certainly not encyclopaedically notable. Just zis Guy you know? 13:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And Celebrity sex tape is notable? I'm so glad I've decided today is my last day editing on this site. The idea of what is notable and what isn't is so incredibly subjective that it's laughable. I think there is even an article on this site about who has breast implants and who doesn't. Actually, here it is: List of people with breast implants. It's fascinating how on one hand Wikipedia is so un-elitist that anyone can edit it, and then some editors try to turn around and act like this is an Ivy League pursuit. -- Andrew Parodi 02:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with ACIM. Cult-cruft. -- GWO
Merge to ACIM. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 09:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Merge/Redirect to A Course In Miracles--TBCTaLk?!? 09:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The publisher of the book is Fearless books, which lo and behold was founded by Patrick Miller, its author. Its amazon.com rank is 347,184 [2] (see "product detail") and having a listing there does not substantiate notability—Publish America books are listed there as well for God's sake. With regard to the references, they are used to substantiate facts about the book this book analyzes, rather than about the book itself. A Course In Miracles appears notable; this cannot piggyback onto its fame; there isn't even an assertion in this article of independent notability. Just to compare, this book returns 87 unique google hits [3], while A Course In Miracles returns 763 [4], among other independent bases. I see nothing here to merge; only the first paragraph contains relevant information for a possible merge and those facts appear to be already established in the substantial mergeto article.--Fuhghettaboutit 09:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per Fughettaboutit's explanation. I didn't think to check Amazon.com earlier. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all self-published books and authors apart from Robert Gunther. Just zis Guy you know? 12:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete indeed, with prejudice, per above. Eusebeus 12:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. — Haeleth Talk 13:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as I concur with Fuhghettaboutit's reasoning above.--Isotope23 18:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Fuhghettaboutit. --William Pietri 21:12, 30 June 2006 (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.