Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Me and the Orgone

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 per near-unanimity of respondents (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 23:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Me and the Orgone

Me and the Orgone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:BK. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, Orson Bean's affiliation with Reich was (in)famous at the time. --Dhartung | Talk 03:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm undecided about this one. The Orson Bean article states that he wrote the book but merely gives its title. The information from the book article could be merged into the Bean bio, which isn't very long. Is there any objection to doing that? Is there any reason to prefer a separate article to a merge? JamesMLane t c 03:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. When I wrote the article, I did so because I read that it is a very significant part of the orgonomy lore. I did get the impression, as Dhartung alludes to, that it was the object of much attention when it came out, which means that there is likely to exist several notable newspaper articles and op-ed pieces centering on it. Obviously I have not researched this (partly because I'm in Norway, and although I have access to both the national library and the Oslo university library, I don't know that they archive many foreign language newspapers. I could perhaps make an effort to find out about periodicals.). This conjecture would tend a good-faith editor towards concluding that the book probably does satisfy WP:BK, but that the article presently doesn't substantiate this, and such an editor would most likely deem it sufficient to add an appropriate maintenance tag which would give other editors generous time to provide the lacking references. __meco (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge Dhartung is correct on the book's fame and its possible place on WP. This would fit well into the Orson Bean article. (Question: is the book still in print?) Ecoleetage (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• It is available at online bookstores (not used). __meco (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep g-books and g-scholar show numerous citations of this book. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The book is by a notable person and it's been cited in several other books. When I looked for references, a bunch showed up pretty quick, so I added some to the article. There's plenty of room in Wikipedia for a book like this one that's not a major bestseller but is notable enough that other writers have quoted it. --Tikilounge (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The author is notable, the book received substantial press coverage at the tie of its publication. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Very readable book on a famous and controversial subject, the book itself is a high point in explaining what was happening from a patient's point of view. Better to expand the article than to dump it, IMHO.User:Jim Redman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.208.210 (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - a book by a famous TV personality about a famous person - reviewed in Time magazine - article has multiple reliable sources. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Some people have an energy flow problem. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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.