The result was no consensus. Merge can be discussed separately. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 15:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
This book is, obviously, abject nonsense on a stick. The question for Wikipedia is: sure, it's bollocks, but is it notable bollocks? I argue not. There are remarkably few sources about the book itself. Those we have are generally not the kinds of sources that establish notability for books. Skeptical Inquirer, for example.
In fact the sourcing on Emoto's article is also sparse and several overlap. There is really only one subject here - Masaru Emooto's nonsensical beliefs about water - and few, if any, reliable sources that address the book without addressing Emoto's methods. A merge to a single title, Masaru Emoto ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), seems to me to provide better overal coverage of this amusing but ultimately trivial backwater of woo. Guy ( help!) 17:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics...as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context...Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page. Having separate articles constitutes WP:Undue weight. We have here an author, his fringe theory, and the book he wrote to promote it. These are all one interrelated topic which should not be split up. Reader understanding is indeed improved by having the context of the other article be together with this information. Crossroads -talk- 03:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Merge can be discussed separately. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 15:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
This book is, obviously, abject nonsense on a stick. The question for Wikipedia is: sure, it's bollocks, but is it notable bollocks? I argue not. There are remarkably few sources about the book itself. Those we have are generally not the kinds of sources that establish notability for books. Skeptical Inquirer, for example.
In fact the sourcing on Emoto's article is also sparse and several overlap. There is really only one subject here - Masaru Emooto's nonsensical beliefs about water - and few, if any, reliable sources that address the book without addressing Emoto's methods. A merge to a single title, Masaru Emoto ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), seems to me to provide better overal coverage of this amusing but ultimately trivial backwater of woo. Guy ( help!) 17:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics...as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context...Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page. Having separate articles constitutes WP:Undue weight. We have here an author, his fringe theory, and the book he wrote to promote it. These are all one interrelated topic which should not be split up. Reader understanding is indeed improved by having the context of the other article be together with this information. Crossroads -talk- 03:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)