Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wellness Doctrines

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 no consensus. Sandstein 12:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wellness Doctrines[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)

Article does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK. Article has had notability tags for almost a year. The most significant coverage the book appears to have received is the ABC article cited (which is not a great deal of discussion), but there is not significant coverage elsewhere that I can find. The Daily Telegraph article only has a small amount of coverage on the book. The Justice Katzmann talk was at the book launch itself, so is not a reliable source, the EventBrite talk is not a reliable source, and the book's website is not a reliable source. Bookscale (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bookscale (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bookscale (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Bookscale (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bookscale (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 11:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are more reliable sources to be found, and many many mentions of the book, and many author interviews because of the two books in the series. Just a small sample of some of the sources include:

There endorsements by people like Julian Burnside [1].

It has the standing of being formally launched in the Federal Court of Australia, by Justice Anna Katzmann [2]

The book series seems notable to me. Aoziwe (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more analysis of sources for SIGCOV and reliability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 04:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 7 days without a comment. Final relist - sources need analysis for SIGCOV
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to Aoziwe's reasoning and citations, I've added several IRS citations and the article now seems to easily meet GNG. Cabrils (talk) 05:21, 5 March 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.