Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric forms of persuasion

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 delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esoteric forms of persuasion[edit]

Not specifically sourced, no reasonable assertion of notability. Google scholar came up with nothing. Beeblbrox (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this is an essay, and does not satisfy WP:NOR. Reyk _YO! 08:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a plug for a not notable book. See [1] --Pmedema (talk) 09:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a candidate for WP:DAFT? Totnesmartin (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR, and not particularly thorough OR at that, as the section on subliminal communication does not really reflect the current scientific consensus (see Subliminal advertising). The only thing that is troublesome is that it does have extensive sourcing, but my spidey sense says the sources are just the bibliography for the book dug up by Pmedema, being WP:SYNTHesized into a different message. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment The article looks completely different now than when I nominated it, but upon seeing the changes, I had the exact same thought. The abundance of sources looks impressive, but they don't seem to be sources that are about the particular concept of "Esoteric forms of persuasion", but more about examples of what it might entail, making it now a synthesis violation, and original research on top of the concerns I expressed in the nomination. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is a violation of the no original research policy and synth guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:
- What makes you think it is a plug? It references the book a number of times, but alongside many other books and sites.
- Doesn't look like original research to me. As far as we can tell, it's not HIS book and he doesn't draw any conclusions not drawn in his citations (thus not qualifying for WP:SYNTH)...

Ultimately, this article is poorly written: It is too much like an essay than an encyclopedic entry and the references section is badly constructed. But the user is brand new to Wikipedia, probably doesn't know any better. The article needs a lot of work, but thats not a reason to delete it. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 09:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if those sources do not use the term "Esoteric forms of persuasion" it is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR... If I thought it was just a clean up issue, I would just clean it up. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point; but they are forms of persuasion and - they are documented. I think the word 'esoteric' was the writers description of the forms of persuasion he (or she) was going to write an article about. 'Esoteric' is a bit non-standard, perhaps it could be changed to 'alternative' or 'unusual' or something you might think more wikipedic. But I stand by my stance that the article is not synthesized or original research and should be kept. --Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 03:50, 28 July 2008 (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.