Deletion of Transcendence: Healing and Transformation Through Transcendental Meditation

Comment: The article appears to have made a small splash in the tabloids. I think it's rather dubius as to how reliable they are about the specific claims though. We need more reliable sources to actually include specific claims of the book. The sourcing in the article currently needs to be tightened up keeping in mind the  guidelines
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: I had a look around, and decided to go with the keep option here.  Reasons:  On the  side I think there's enough ''significant coverage'' over ''reliable source'' (Fox news, USA Today, CNN, WSJ, NY Times, LA Times, etc.) that I think it could stand on that alone to some extent.  While a couple of those are "self published" in that Rosenthal was the author - it does persuade me to the point of number 5 in the criteria of the  guideline. (which I find to be a bit undefined if not ambiguous).  Not saying he's an Edgar Allan Poe or anything, but his GA article certainly establishes him as a notable author.  Now  won't tell us if the book will win any awards (still too early in its release for that) - the fact that it has made some of the best seller lists I find also persuasive.  guess that about covers it from my view.  ty, and luck to all
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NB||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: The references that show up on Google Scholar do not establish notability per  The THEMA reference is to a blog entry on a SPS website of the TM Movement, not a RS. The Hankey reference is a paper at a conference, not a published RS, and the book is simply a footnote with no substantive discussion of it. The Medscape reference is user-created content on a website, not a RS. It contains no discussion of the book, but simply notes that Rosenthal recently wrote it. The Boyer article simply references the book as part of a string citation in a footnote with no discussion of the book or its contents. I have no idea what the last reference says - can't read Slovenian. The book shows up in a footnote only , not in the body of the text. These are not the kinds of sources that  requires and do not contain the kind of non-trivial, critical commentary required
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NB||WP:NB)