Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Body Electric (book)

The Body Electric (book)

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

Essentially just a recreation of the article here [1]. This recreation has the same issues as the first one. It does not demonstrate notability, contains large amounts of undue material and original research etc. We have the same issues as the previous article. To avoid confusion I will note that there are numerous similarly titled books. Steps I went to check notability:

Google scholar, I checked "The body electric". All of the hits (except a citation to the book) in the first few pages were unrelated to the book so I stopped looking.

Google scholar again, I checked "The body electric" Becker in the hopes of getting relevant hits, I found some citations but mostly in articles of dubious quality.

Google Books: The first few pages were books of the same or similar name by different authors, to narrow the search down I added Becker to the start: All I found were numerous unreliable fringe publications.

Google search: nothing relevant

I checked the sources in the article itself, there is only one inline citation,

All in all the book fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG

The article pre-AfD: [2] for reference. As a side arguement: the article in itself would need a complete re-write to be encyclopedic, most of the article is a non-critical paraphrasing of the book and includes numerous fringe claims such as warning of the dangers of EMF fields without putting the mainstream perspective even slightly in view: His contention (supported by much evidence he presents) is that the experts choosing the pollution limits are strongly influenced by the polluting industry, the article also contains OR unrelated to the book about the dangers of EMF; This notion is supported by a comparison with Eastern Europe, where the research done by more independent scientists led to far stricter emission limits, The article also openly admits to being a synthesis of primary sources that aren't directly connected with the article when it states that: Other primary sources: The papers listed in the article Robert O. Becker. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The AMSA listing as a classic along with the NYT review is sufficient to show the notability of the book. The article needs some considerable cutting, to maybe 1/3 the length, but that's easy enough; I've done about half of it already. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AMSA's helps to expose medical students to information on subjects not generally covered in traditional curricula, aka it represents non-mainstream teaching. Your reference to AMSA listing it as a classic is on this website [3], note that the website isn't AMSA but a website for Advanced Biofeedback & Energetic Medicine, AMSA appear to have discontinued the course. The course was also on Bioenergic Medicines which aimed to help students, amongst other things, understand the concept of subtle energy, the vital force, qi, and prana. Basically I don't think being in an alternative medicine course book list helps towards notability. Specifically I don't think point 4 of NBOOK: The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country is met for the follow reasons:

1. The course appears to have been cancelled (it's from 10 years ago).

2. The course is not mainstream and so would feature more non-notable fringe works

3. It's a single course, NBOOK mentions requiring courses

4. The book isn't the main book for the class but appears to be extra reading.

IRWolfie- (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not easy to search in Google Scholar, as the 1855 poetry book "I sing the body electric" is difficult to avoid. How to search: Search for the combination The body electric and Becker and Selden. The first result is the correct book. Now click at this entry to get the 454 papers quoting this book. This is not OR - just standard literature search.

The article had to be recreated as it had been totally annihilated, but it is completely rewritten. It has two parts: First the lead for a necessary demonstration of notability, and then a book synopsis. This was quite short for a 350 page text. No OR. It should be explained what is undue about this synopsis. Becker's opinion about electromagnetic pollution is supported by an EU report. I am open to suggestions from unbiased, rationally thinking editors if they think Becker's findings require corroboration. I should have described the other sources as peer-reviewed publications - accepted by expert editors. OlavN (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar citatations are irrelevant as they are from unreliable sources. Also note WP:GOOGLEHITS. This EU report [4] does not mention Becker and it is OR to link it to the topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Apparent WP:FRINGE, but several of those GS citations are reliable. -- 202.124.73.7 (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]