Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern channelled texts

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. Sandstein 06:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of modern channelled texts[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

See Talk:List of modern channelled texts#Notability template for previous discussion. This has been in CAT:NN for 7 years. 'Modern channelled texts' does not seem to be a notable concept. Boleyn (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list of forgeries fakes and flim flam, unsourced. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is a clear example of WP:NOT, with a generous bit of WP:SYNTH and some WP:OR added for flavor. There is no encyclopedic content here for a stand alone article. Perhaps some of the material here could be researched by an interested editor, and if properly sourced, merged into Mediumship#Channeling. // Timothy :: talk 15:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is an appropriate subject for a list; people have definitely written about channeled texts. It looks like half of the entries on the primary list (timeline) are notable works with blue links, so this is encyclopedic content. Sources for those works are on the individual article pages. I agree that these are forgeries and flim flam, but forgeries can be notable as well; making the decision based on whether you believe the authors' claims is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the list isn't notable and it's also a form of non-neutral promotion. It's fine to make lists based on reliable third party sources with a reputation for truth. But these types of claims are fundamentally misleading and does a disservice to our readers. I agree with TimothyBlue that maybe this could be covered in context as a verifiable phenomenon, but with the purpose of explaining it as a concept, not creating a catalog of books. Archrogue (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment channeled about the article: "This does not meet WP:LISTN because it has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources reflecting with a WP:NPOV" text from Denis Diderot, channeled by // Timothy :: talk 19:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The concept of channeled texts is certainly a notable one, and people have definitely written about them. As it happens, Wikipedia covers the topic. It does not therefore follow that a list of purported such texts is notable, especially when so many of the entries aren't even redlinked, most are not sourced, and generic numbers of works by "mediums" and "hypnotherapists" are included without any attempt at gauging whether they meet the list's criteria ... which itself is scanty, and for no good reason omits such texts predating the 19th century. Perhaps there is a place on Wikipedia for a thoroughly sourced list of such works, for those sources not to be primary, for the works listed to be bluelinks, and for the criteria to be inclusive of the topic. This is not that list, and at the level best, it's TNT fodder. Ravenswing 04:53, 26 August 2020 (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.