Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reincarnation research

Reincarnation research

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

This is an original research sythesis of a variety of research programs both legitimate and dubious that involve reincarnation. There are no academic programs, departments, or professional research societies that are organized around "reincarnation research". There are billions of human beings who believe in reincarnation just as there are billions who believe in virgin birth. But we do not have special articles on virgin birth research for obvious reasons just as we should not have an article on "reincarnation resesarch". ScienceApologist (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose It escapes me how this is OR "sythesis". Please elaborate. Additionally: have never noticed that tenured academics at a top US university study virgin birth; to add a bit of credibility to your analogy, would appreciate if you could alert me to their existence.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

parthenogenesis. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose Synthesis is a + b = c. Tidy up the "= c" by all means, but there's no valid reason to blast a and b out of existence while you're at it. The virgin birth argument is also specious, as it doesn't hold for more relevant topics such as ESP. K2709 (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ESP is a "more relevant topic"? I wonder how that determination was made. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose It would have to be original (unpublished) synthesis for us to be concerned with it running afoul of policy. Then we would have to consider if it could only be original synthesis for us to consider the concept for the article flawed and delete it outright, instead of rewriting or tagging it for cleanup. There have been a number of books written since the 1970s that published a synthesis of research programs on the topic of reincarnation. Whatever the content of our current article, legitimate (non-original) synthesis already exists externally. Because the concept for the article is valid, it shouldn't be deleted. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 14:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not dispute that there are books written about "reincarnation", can you point to a book that's written about "reincarnation research"? Similar to my virgin birth analogy: there are books written about virigin births, but none about "virgin birth research". ScienceApologist (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a number of books listed with Google Books [1] that have a summary of what research has been done and by whom. Even the Complete Idiot's Guide to Reincarnation covers it. Probably every New Agey book trying to make case for reincarnation outside of religious tradition includes a synthetic summary of research to support their argument. If you're looking for more reliable sources, you'll definitely find sources that take a critical/skeptical look at reincarnation research, and of course these synthesize the material together as well. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]