Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mind Tree

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. Well, it seems like there is no evidence of the requisite third-party coverage we'd need to establish notability and several delete arguments on this basis. Thus delete it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Mind Tree

[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)

I know I tend to be biased on this topic but hear me out. To begin with, the four references in the article don't even mention The Mind Tree at all. It should be known that the book was allegedly written by Tito Mukhopadhyay, a low-functioning autistic individual who supposedly uses Rapid prompting method, a scientifically unproven communication technique.

In a recent deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amy_Sequenzia_(2nd_nomination), a user made the following point:

Even a top-line source such as New York Times would be severely called into question at Reliable Source Noticeboard if the NYT published an interview or other information obtained via telepathy or channeling of dead spirits, without even commenting that the communication might be questioned, without giving any indication they even considered the issue and that they actively consider this case reliable.

Yet all the possible sources for this book that I have found do not question that method at all. For instance, the Simon and Schuster page says "Although he is severely autistic and nearly nonverbal, Tito’s ability to communicate through his extraordinary writing is astonishing." Publisher's Weekly says "the experience of reading the book together with testimony from psychiatrist Lorna Wing convinces that Tito wrote it himself." Even a journal article claims "He is the author of three books: The Mind Tree, The Gold of the Sunbeams, and How Can I Talk If My Lips Don't Move?"

If the article should stay, editors will have to find sources for this book that also question RPM, otherwise, they cannot be reliable. Ylevental (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue here is whether the book is notable, not whether it is scientifically sound. 2.34.246.55 (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I hear what you're saying about sources being reliable on matters of science. However, I think this is kind of similar to having, say, an NYT interview with an author who writes books on telepathy, where the interview doesn't mention that telepathy is clearly bunk. Sure, ideally the source /should/ question pseudoscience, but (particularly for book reviews), I don't know that it automatically makes the source unreliable for establishing notability that they go along with the premise of the book. Considering the notability of other books full of pseudoscience such as The Secret, I'm pretty sure that notability-establishing sources are not required to reject the content of the book. Gilded Snail (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing Note A blog post[1] advocating for "Facilitated Communication" has linked to this discussion and urged people to participate. ApLundell (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no references. The three that were recently removed don't even mention the book, and were therefore not real references. Besides that, the article makes no assertion of notability at all. It asserts only that the book exists, which is clearly not enough. After a few minutes of Googling, I couldn't find any notable mention of the book, besides booksellers. If this article has supporters, they need to explain why it's notable. (And that's all completely seperate from the rather awkward BLP problems.) ApLundell (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Fails WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am just not finding sources on the book. There is some coverage of the author, although I am by no means convinced that he would pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2019 (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.