913:. We may or may not consider him a whack job or in some way engaging in pseudo-science but the volume of sourcing, including reliable ones, sure suggests that he is a leading authority in his field. This is where encyclopedia writing arises to the level of explaining the subject and pointing our readers to helpful information about related topics. If most mainstream scientific scholars discredit the field or this person's work then simply state that without judgment. If he is the leading authority then state that. Go where the sources lead and even if various "sides" aren't happy at least we treat the subject fairly and dispassionately.
830:: If you are calling him fringe, what is he a fringe of? The article under discussion is about a person, not a subject. You could have multiple theories about some phenomenon or even some person( " he is an agent of Satan") but an article can't be fringe about itself. So, ok, let's say he is notable for being an expert in a fringe area of some scientific discipline. He may get zero coverage in some article related to that larger topic but it doesn't matter here- essentially, the quality of his science doesn't matter if he was made notable by appearances on Oprah or MTV and follow up coverage for his fringe science.
447:. I think that, at least for individuals in generally notable classes (authors, performers, politicians, as opposed to "human interest" figures) appearing on major television programs like Oprah is pretty strong evidence of notability, and should at the very least be treated as significant independent coverage. Otherwise we have the paradox that if, for example, a TV host's guest talks about a book for a few minutes, and recommends it, that's evidence of notability, but if she brings the author on for an hour to discuss himself and his book, that's just promotion.
411:(not just Oprah) and for the fact that he is a frequent consultant to the media on the question of apparent remembered past lives. It seems that the academic notability issue has been raised as a smokescreen for eliminating an article about Tucker because of a distaste for the nature of his research. I may be misreading this but it sure seems that way. Even if you don't agree with his research and think it doesn't deserve to be presented in WP because of its
587:: The goal here is to document what people care about, consider this entry to be a commentary on current culture not a basis on which to do historical rearsrch probing the recollections of past lives. Kirlian photography is still notable if it captures a life force or water content and maybe there is some other merit buried in his work but we want to present the current thinking to the reader.
371:
author care to elaborate on the coverage from Oprah or other sources and distinguish it from promotional or "intellectually dependent" of Tucker ( biased, PR, or purely advertising)? I guess my other presumption is that if Oprah covered it someone else covered her coveage etc etc- almost nothing on that show appears unnotable, again not a comment on scientific merit.
864:
When creating context by referencing the larger fields in which he works, it would seem that mainstream views on reincarnation may get only passing mention as being of "fringe" relevance to his raison d'etre. I guess at some point you have to determine how a source can be reliable and still indulge nonsense or, more often, just things you don't happen to like.
747:, some of those seem to mention Tucker the reporter with an unrelated comment about Oprah. I thought reincarnation would remove most of those. I'm not claiming these are reliable sources or that any of them should be cited, simply that he is in fact well known ( ok, notability has not been proven from this search) for the work in the field.
863:
Yes, agreed, context is important but in the context of a wikipedia article on topic A, A can not be a fringe view point related to A. So, the fact that some number of people write about him makes him notable and this coverage, not it scientific or really even scholastic merit, are the most relevant.
838:
for explaining why his ideas are right or wrong, but we do need to provide enough information to connect with the average reader. The independent coverage is what tells us how to weight the article, with points that are the subject of coverage elsewhere being given more space and detail than material
463:
You need to have some notion of independence. If you paid to get on Oprah or it was an infomercial, everyone would glibby assume that didn't make it notable. I don't know quite what relationship exists for that show but just assumed there would be more converage due to that. It could of course be an
370:
You do raise a good point, notability isn't inherited, and I guess selecting guests is not much different from giving an invited talk at a conference. Presumably it is largely a promotional peace but not sure if appearance on Oprah creates a strong but rebuttable presumption of notability. Does the
761:
I've added the rescue tag in case anyone is interested in rooting through thoughs and adding supporting cites to the article. However the article as it stands already has multiple links to media appearances (admittedly not all involving Oprah), newspaper articles and a full length documentary on
191:
This article has been tagged as not meeting
Wikipedias notability guidelines since July. AT this point it is unlikely that further sourcing will be added that will satisfy the editors that have raised this concern, therefore per the notability template I am bringing the article to AfD (" If
333:: Looks like mention by Oprah and Depak, we don't need to establish scientific merit just notice. AFAIK he needn't qualify on the basis of criteria for an academic, a notable clown who happens to work at a university could still be notable.
833:
Part of encyclopedic coverage of any author or ideamonger involves detailing how their ideas fit in to the scholarship of the field and more generally the state of human knowledge as a whole. Obviously, this article should not be a
659:
Discsussion of the tag would seem out of place until there is a verdict. However, yes, I would expect the tag to be removed if the article was kept on the grounds of meeting notability requirements. Why wouldn't it be?
504:
sufficient sources for notability as an author. How is the Sfgate article at least not substantial coverage of him? That what he is saying is in my personal opinion utter nonsense does not affect notability.
160:
691:
is notable. A non-notable author can write about a notable topic (and vise versa). Since the subject of the article in question is a person... let's keep focused on whether that person is notable or not.
216:
385:
Don't presume... I would agree that if someone else covered Oprah's coverage of Tucker, there would be a much better case for saying that Tucker is notable... but the question is: Is there such a source?
407:- Tucker easily meets the general criteria for notability, not necessarily as an academic (although he is an assistant professor and medical director of a clinic at U.S. university), but for the
294:. Brr, the study of past lives memories from reincarnation. Personally, I find this pretty preposterous. However, the media coverage cited in the article seems sufficient to me for passing
121:
616:
probably deserved balanced coverage in
Knowledge (XXG). I don't personally believe, but I can accept that the scientific method could be applied to exploring these questions.
570:: Significant sources are asserted (National Post, SFGate, Discover, Discovery Channel, etc.), until these are shown not to refer to Tucker, this article is "well sourced." -
242:
268:
154:
637:, no significant coverage in several independent sources. Note to nom, surviving this AfD wouldn't be a good reason to remove the tag; if it does survive.
719:
350:- I don't think appearing on Oprah etc in the context of doing a book tour is an indication of notability... just a good publisher. Now, if someone
431:
The article under discussion is Tucker, he can't be fringe about himself. In an article on rigorous science, he may or may not be mentioned.
709:: he seems to be a notable speaker on this topic, 500 hits that probably relate to him+oprah ( not sure if there are spurious hits here),
17:
883:
452:
94:
89:
98:
175:
892:
845:
815:
963:
879:
142:
36:
490:
81:
720:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Jim+Tucker%22+reincarnation+oprah&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
448:
869:
752:
726:
592:
469:
436:
376:
338:
962:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
56:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
608:
endowed a project at the
University of Virginia to study this stuff and its staff gains press attention, then
529:
192:
notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged or deleted. "). Please consider myself
136:
806:
420:
835:
762:
Tuckers work, so I am not sure they will do anything to perusade those that say Tucker is not notable.
132:
948:
929:
897:
873:
850:
820:
771:
756:
730:
701:
669:
652:
625:
596:
579:
562:
545:
516:
496:
473:
456:
424:
395:
380:
363:
342:
324:
307:
283:
257:
231:
205:
63:
865:
748:
722:
621:
588:
558:
465:
432:
372:
334:
320:
878:
Um, I am agreeing with you. A more general discussion of the best way to write articles covered by
168:
49:
790:
412:
182:
914:
697:
575:
391:
359:
354:, while appearing on Oprah, had discussed Tuker or his books... well, that would be different.
944:
416:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
634:
887:
840:
810:
645:
525:
295:
617:
605:
554:
541:
316:
303:
85:
148:
767:
665:
279:
253:
227:
201:
683:
I think some of the editors responding to this AfD have confused the issue of whether
693:
609:
571:
533:
512:
387:
355:
940:
115:
639:
415:
nature, how can you justify assessing him as non-notable on general criteria? --
613:
537:
486:
408:
299:
77:
69:
763:
661:
275:
249:
223:
197:
507:
524:
as per DGG. Not sure he qualifies as an academic, but easily meets
315:. Assistant professor in pseudoscience area. Minimal GS cites yet.
956:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
528:
with articles such as those in major local publications as the
217:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
939:, per DGG, sufficient sources for notability as an author.
789:
This is a definite case for the judicious application of
483:
no evidence of depth of coverage in third party sources.
111:
107:
103:
167:
181:
298:, even for a fringe science/pseudo-science topic.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
966:). No further edits should be made to this page.
243:list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions
269:list of Religion-related deletion discussions
8:
532:and major national publications such as the
263:
237:
211:
687:is notable with the issue of whether the
267:: This debate has been included in the
241:: This debate has been included in the
215:: This debate has been included in the
839:that has not received such comment. -
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
884:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Fringe theories
24:
880:Knowledge (XXG):Fringe theories
464:infomercial type relationship.
1:
949:03:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
930:12:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
898:18:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
874:12:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
851:09:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
821:20:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
791:WP:FRINGE#Independent sources
772:17:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
757:16:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
731:16:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
702:16:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
396:16:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
64:02:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
670:21:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
653:20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
626:12:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
597:11:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
580:08:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
563:05:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
546:04:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
517:04:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
497:03:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
474:01:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
457:01:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
425:01:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
381:00:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
364:00:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
343:23:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
325:23:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
308:22:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
284:22:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
258:22:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
232:22:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
206:22:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
983:
409:media coverage of his book
959:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
553:Significant coverage.--
530:San Francisco Chronicle
807:Reincarnation research
689:topic he writes about
449:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
809:could also work. -
801:are enough for me.
44:The result was
896:
849:
819:
650:
286:
272:
260:
246:
234:
220:
974:
961:
926:
920:
890:
843:
813:
651:
648:
644:
495:
273:
247:
221:
186:
185:
171:
119:
101:
59:
34:
982:
981:
977:
976:
975:
973:
972:
971:
970:
964:deletion review
957:
924:
918:
866:Nerdseeksblonde
749:Nerdseeksblonde
723:Nerdseeksblonde
646:
638:
606:Chester Carlson
589:Nerdseeksblonde
493:
484:
466:Nerdseeksblonde
433:Nerdseeksblonde
373:Nerdseeksblonde
335:Nerdseeksblonde
128:
92:
76:
73:
57:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
980:
978:
969:
968:
952:
951:
933:
932:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
856:
855:
854:
853:
824:
823:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
759:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
673:
672:
656:
655:
628:
599:
582:
565:
548:
519:
499:
489:
477:
476:
460:
459:
441:
440:
428:
427:
401:
400:
399:
398:
367:
366:
345:
328:
310:
288:
287:
261:
235:
189:
188:
125:
72:
67:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
979:
967:
965:
960:
954:
953:
950:
946:
942:
938:
935:
934:
931:
928:
927:
921:
912:
909:
908:
899:
894:
889:
885:
881:
877:
876:
875:
871:
867:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
852:
847:
842:
837:
832:
831:
829:
826:
825:
822:
817:
812:
808:
804:
800:
796:
792:
788:
785:
784:
773:
769:
765:
760:
758:
754:
750:
746:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
728:
724:
721:
708:
705:
704:
703:
699:
695:
690:
686:
682:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
671:
667:
663:
658:
657:
654:
649:
643:
642:
636:
632:
629:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
610:Ian Stevenson
607:
603:
600:
598:
594:
590:
586:
583:
581:
577:
573:
569:
566:
564:
560:
556:
552:
549:
547:
543:
539:
535:
534:National Post
531:
527:
523:
520:
518:
514:
510:
509:
503:
500:
498:
494:
492:
488:
482:
479:
478:
475:
471:
467:
462:
461:
458:
454:
450:
446:
443:
442:
438:
434:
430:
429:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
406:
403:
402:
397:
393:
389:
384:
383:
382:
378:
374:
369:
368:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
346:
344:
340:
336:
332:
329:
326:
322:
318:
314:
311:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
290:
289:
285:
281:
277:
270:
266:
262:
259:
255:
251:
244:
240:
236:
233:
229:
225:
218:
214:
210:
209:
208:
207:
203:
199:
195:
184:
180:
177:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
134:
131:
130:Find sources:
126:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
60:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
958:
955:
936:
922:
916:
910:
827:
802:
798:
794:
786:
744:
718:
706:
688:
684:
680:
640:
630:
601:
584:
567:
550:
521:
506:
501:
485:
480:
444:
417:EPadmirateur
404:
351:
347:
330:
312:
291:
264:
238:
212:
193:
190:
178:
172:
164:
157:
151:
145:
139:
129:
54:
50:
45:
43:
31:
28:
155:free images
793:, but the
618:Racepacket
614:Jim Tucker
555:Epeefleche
317:Xxanthippe
78:Jim Tucker
70:Jim Tucker
882:might be
787:Weak keep
707:InContext
602:Weak Keep
292:Weak keep
836:coatrack
799:Discover
694:Blueboar
681:Comment:
572:BalthCat
388:Blueboar
356:Blueboar
122:View log
941:Johnfos
635:WP:NOTE
481:Delete:
194:neutral
161:WP refs
149:scholar
95:protect
90:history
795:SFGate
685:Tucker
641:Verbal
633:Fails
631:Delete
526:WP:GNG
413:fringe
348:Delete
313:Delete
296:WP:BIO
133:Google
99:delete
893:cont.
846:cont.
816:cont.
803:Merge
585:Merit
551:Keep.
538:Nfitz
513:talk
491:Stalk
487:Hrafn
300:Kinoq
176:JSTOR
137:books
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
945:talk
937:Keep
917:Banj
911:Keep
886:. -
870:talk
797:and
768:talk
764:Artw
753:talk
745:FWIW
727:talk
698:talk
666:talk
662:Artw
647:chat
622:talk
612:and
593:talk
576:talk
568:Keep
559:talk
542:talk
522:Keep
502:Keep
470:talk
453:talk
445:Keep
437:talk
421:talk
405:Keep
392:talk
377:talk
360:talk
352:else
339:talk
331:Keep
321:talk
304:talk
280:talk
276:Artw
265:Note
254:talk
250:Artw
239:Note
228:talk
224:Artw
213:Note
202:talk
198:Artw
169:FENS
143:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
58:Talk
46:keep
915:--
888:2/0
841:2/0
811:2/0
805:to
604:If
508:DGG
183:TWL
120:– (
947:)
925:oi
872:)
770:)
755:)
729:)
700:)
668:)
624:)
595:)
578:)
561:)
544:)
536:.
515:)
472:)
455:)
423:)
394:)
379:)
362:)
341:)
323:)
306:)
282:)
271:.
256:)
245:.
230:)
219:.
204:)
196:.
163:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
51:NW
48:.
943:(
923:b
919:e
895:)
891:(
868:(
848:)
844:(
828:Q
818:)
814:(
766:(
751:(
725:(
696:(
664:(
620:(
591:(
574:(
557:(
540:(
511:(
468:(
451:(
439:)
435:(
419:(
390:(
375:(
358:(
337:(
327:.
319:(
302:(
278:(
274:—
252:(
248:—
226:(
222:—
200:(
187:)
179:·
173:·
165:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
135:(
127:(
124:)
118:)
80:(
61:)
55:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.