Talk:List of works based on A Course in Miracles

Due to the fact that the main article was getting both unwieldy and redundant, I have created this page to provide a spot where notable works based on ACIM might be cataloged.Scott P. (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This page is not necessary. There are only two ACIM-related books that have sold "millions": A Return to Love and A Course in Miracles itself. Both books already have pages, so this list is not necessary. There is no other book based on ACIM that has sold "millions." Sure, maybe the combined total of all ACIM-related books have sold millions, but that doesn't mean an ACIM bibliography is necessary. Not everything about a movement whose "bible" has only sold about two million copies, needs a page. ACIM (the book) itself is notable, but the movement itself is quite obscure by mainstream standards, and not every detail of the movement deserves a page. Lucinda14 (talk)|

The need for this page

There are probably well over 1000 books written about ACIM. Obviously Wikipedia would not be a good place to list them all. Still several of them have sold millions. To make the outright statement that Wikipedia should list none, by deleting this page, seems to me as perhaps not very helpful. If you might propose a better way of listing perhaps the 10 most helpful books here, I am all ears. If there were a way to find the top 10 best sellers related to ACIM, perhaps just the top ten could be listed here. Scott P. (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The first step would be to show that the the topic is notable, that some reliable source has indicated that there is a group of publications based on ACIM. Then, each entry would require a source to support that it was in fact based on ACIM. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Which topic are you saying would have to be notable? The topic of ACIM itself, or whatever subtopic any given book about ACIM might be about. If a book has sold millions would you not say that makes it notable? What about perhaps hundreds of thousands? Would not the listing of the name ACIM in a book's title or forward be sufficient proof that the book was about ACIM? Scott P. (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

For this to be an article, the topic of "Works based on X" should be a subject that has been discussed. We dont make articles purely because cruft is overflowing the main article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see the next topic below. Scott P. (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia manual of style on lists

In so far as I can tell, this list complies with all of the Wikipedia manual of style requirements for a list of books. I don't see any place in this manual of style where such documentation as you are claiming is required in a list of books, as being required in a list of books. Could you please point me to a Wikipedia document that might support your claim that such documentation would be needed in a "list of books"? Scott P. (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Lists are subject to the same policies as every other article. Wikipedia:Source_list#Listed_items "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." . For an entry to be on this list, there must be a source that specifically identifies it as a work based on ACIM. And per WP:UNDUE the source should be a third party commentary, if only from the author is a claim "I based this on ACIM", its probably not a worthy example. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

How exactly does my list fail to match the ideal list examples given in the link I provided above? You seem to me to be forgetting that books normally stand on their own as refs.Scott P. (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Please forgive me, but it's almost midnight here in the Detroit area, and my eyelids are growing rather heavy. Goodnight. Scott P. (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You do not have a single item on the list that has a third party source (nor do any currently even a primary source cited) verifying the claim that it is "based on ACIM" and therefore meets the lists criteria. most of the items appear to be non- notable works by non- notable authors. Wikipedia is not just an in-discriminant collection of information. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, how many cites referring to books in Wikipedia require secondary backup refs? None or nearly none so far as I know. Books are a unique case in Wikipedia, and are generally considered to be "end references" requiring no further proof of their existence or meaning. Please take a second look at the examples in the Manual of Style for Bibliographies that I have linked to just above. Nowhere does it claim that books referred to require secondary backup refs. If you could kindly point me to some part of the Wikipedia policies which clearly state that a list of books requires secondary backup refs, then I could gladly work with that. Otherwise, if you could at least point me to a single list of books in Wikipedia that demonstrates your citing requirements being used, that would be helpful too. We are both bound by the Manual of Style. One cannot simply strike out on one's own and unilaterally state that pages in the manual of style need no longer be followed. Here are two random examples of other book lists in Wikipedia that I found on rather "arcane" subjects, that I am hoping might illustrate my point about book lists. They are: List of GURPS books, and List of Animorphs books. I think its probably a safe bet that far fewer than the 2 or 3 million folks that have bought ACIM books are involved in either one of these topics. Scott P. (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I missed this comment back when you made it, but WP:OTHERCRAP is not a valid argument. There are still no third party sources for this article and there is no indication that "books about ACIM" is a topic matter that anyone has considered worthy of discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)