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 keep. "Merge and delete" arguments are invalid, as the GFDL requires the article to be turned into a redirect with the history; all such arguments have been discounted. There are few editors arguing for actual deletion and a decent case for notability. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable book to warrant an article. Best is to merge useful content with the author's article (Margaret Singer.

Attempts by Smeelgova (talk · contribs) to canvass votes for this AfD, without knowing that it is not an acepted behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Therapies (book).' was Smeelgova's only mention of this on my talk page. I don't consider this innapropriate. There's nothing wrong with discussing things with users you share similar interests with. It's not like she wrote 'Go here and vote keep, vote keep!'Merkinsmum 16:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• merge and delete, as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Deleting then merging would mean there is no content to merge. If you meant "merge and delete", that would be a violation of the GFDL (history preservation)... so delete, or merge? Also note that if the content was indeed reproduced from the jacket cover, that would constitute a copyright violation. ColourBurst 15:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currected. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as nominated. =Axlq 03:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, the book gets plenty of search engine hits. The book has not one, but two separate authors. According to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Note_on_notability_criteria :

  "Ask yourself if several libraries or bookshops, or a no-subscription website have a copy of the book, so that other wikipedians can easily consult the book, or at least have access to on-line or press-published reviews of the book."

  The book most certainly fits all of these listed criteria. It is readily available in libraries and bookshops, and has dozens of on-line and press-published reviews from notable sources. The book itself is used as a scholarly source in journal articles. Smeelgova 03:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You forgot to copy also from same guideline (my highlight) "[...]not every book somewhere cited in a references section of a Wikipedia article will necessarily get a separate wikipedia article for itself. Nonetheless there is no dictum against any book that is reasonably spread or otherwise well-known or remarkable." ≈ jossi ≈ t •

@ 03:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment to the closing admin. Can't we at the very least wait more than a few hours to see how this article develops? The AFD was put into effect a mere minutes after the article was created. Thank you. Smeelgova 04:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

NOTE: I have attempted to significantly modify the article as per suggestions here and on the article's talk page since the AFD began. Yours, Smeelgova 07:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment to the closing admin. - As stated above, I did not know that this particular action was a no-no by Wikipedia Administrators. Immediately after User:Jossi notifed me of this, I ceased "canvassing". There was a miscommunication after the fact between "consensus building" and "recruitment", however this only took place on talk pages. To reiterate, after the warning from User:Jossi, pointing out to me something that I had not previously known, which is that this action is considered inappropriate by Wikipedia Administrators - I ceased doing so. Yours, Smeelgova 23:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep or Merge This Author has published a number of books that appear to have recieved acclaim in her "abit small" area of expertise "Cults, brainwashing & Phycological manipulation" Mark1800 03:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and mergeredirect, as nom -- though there seems very little to actually merge, since the "article", as such, is almost all reprodcued text from the dust jacket. --Calton | Talk 04:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Blank and start-over I suppose the book itself could qualify as an article, but as it stands now, it's eminently unsuited for a Wikipedia article. Copying outright from the book cover is highly suspect. FrozenPurpleCube 05:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Merging this article the author's article would be a step backwards--useful information that currently exists in this article (e.g. the table of contents) would have to be deleted. Deleting the article outright would just be pointless: while it may not have broad appeal, that's one of the points of Wikipedia: you can find information on just about any topic, not only on a handful of topics that a group of oligarchs have decided are important. Ckerr 08:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having the table of contents outright in the article is not a point in this article's favor. Describing the contents of a book are ok, and very appropriate for an article. Listing the table of contents is not, it's rather bad form actually. FrozenPurpleCube 14:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Table of Contents has been removed. The number of reviews has been reduced. I retained the review by Philip Zimbardo, because he is a noted authority on the subject. If the article is given more than than the mere day it's had to be expanded I'm sure it will be expanded upon. Thank you for your time, and your commentary. Yours, Smeelgova 23:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete and merge per nom. --Aaron 10:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge to Margaret Singer.--Lord of Illusions 18:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete On the fence due to having been reviewed by notable sources (Philip Zimbardo is definitely considered an expert in the field), but it has an amazon.com SalesRank of 597,531 and produces only 164 unique Google hits. Also, the review by Zimbardo is copyrighted, and I'm not sure whether citing it like that is allowed. (also, what does "delete and merge mean? do you mean delete and redirect?) -Elmer Clark 02:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It means merge any useful material and delete the article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Because no provenance was given for the Zimbardo quote, even within an article that does seem to attempt to cite properly, I inferred, perhaps wrongly, that it was merely a cover blurb. -- Hoary 03:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC) ......... PS We're now told that it's not a cover blurb. But there's no indication of where it comes from.-- Hoary 09:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the quote to a reference from Behavioral Interventions. Hope this is satisfactory. Thank you for the advice and suggestions. Hopefully when someone finds the location to cite the Philip Zimbardo review, we can put that back in, as he is a noteworthy authority on the subject matter. Yours, Smeelgova 09:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Summarize (deleting such flab as the infobox and the utterly uncommunicative cover photo), merge, and redirect. -- Hoary 03:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, don't merge. Book by a notable author through a non-vanity press. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Allow time to improve. I don't know the book, it would be more interesting to me if the article was wikified to link it to a discussion of Recovered Memory Therapy, Multiple Personality Disorder, Satanic Ritual Abuse and other such issues of controversial therapeutic practice that were quite crucial at the time, (1996) and are still important now. Then the article would be a good read, if the books'perspective on these issues was discussed. As it stands its a bit like something straight off 'amazon' or another book site, but linked to these issues it would make a good article for me. I supect this is what the books' about, those contemporary issues, discussing the authors views on these issues more to put the book in context would stop it being purely a rave about the book. I was referred here by user smeelgova as we had agreed on a previous article. But I like to think I've been reasonably impartial. I am passing my suggestions on to the article's talk page and smeelgova himself so if there is any value in them hopefully they will be used and the article will improve- for my tastes at leastMerkinsmum 00:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I disagree with Jossi's statement that user:Smeelgova has inappropriately canvassed votes for previous Afds. She informed several editors in a neutral tone to vote which I think is acceptable behavior. Andries 09:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment. Do you feel the header still needs to be at the top of the page, especially taking into account my ignorance in the matter beforehand, and my ceasing to "canvass" after I was warned that this was a big Wikipedia no-no? Yours, Smeelgova 10:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, it should stay, to give people like Andries to comment. This is useful info for the closing admin. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that sounds reasonable. Smeelgova 05:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Blank and start over per FrozenPurpleCube. Anchoress 10:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't know about this book but I would like to point out that the ridiculously inclusive quote from Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Note_on_notability_criteria (Ask yourself if several libraries or bookshops, or a no-subscription website have a copy of the book, bla bla bla) is not representative of consensus. Much much closer to actual practice on AfDs is the proposed WP:BK. Whether or not this particular book meets the criteria, I don't know, but it should be a better basis for discussion. Pascal.Tesson 00:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Pascal.Tesson and User:Jossi's recommendation, I went ahead and looked at WP:BK#Criteria. The criteria clearly states that if one of the criteria is met, the book is "generally notable." One of these criteria is, "The book's author meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for people, based on his/her work as a writer.", which Margaret Singer most certainly does. Smeelgova 05:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep. An extension to information relating to a notable author. The "Table of Contents" section provides a useful summary pending expansion of the article. Thanks to User:Smeelgova (as a fellow-editor with an interest in Margaret Singer) for bringing this proposed deletion to my attention in a non-partisan note. -- Pedant17 12:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep but get rid of the cheesy blurb at top of article--looks like an advertisement.Glendoremus 05:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, don't merge. She's a recognized author, and if the book has even a paragraph it should have its own article, however stubby. Pegship 03:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. It's obviously a book so should have its own article, but the article needs cleaning up - you can see the problems as soon as you arrive at the page. Also, I was only alerted to this Wikipedia Article Deletion debate when Smeelgova posted a message on my user talk page. Matthuxtable 21:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For note, Smeelgova's talk page says that the user is no longer editing Wikipedia. Matthuxtable 21:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this AfD debate yet? Smeelgova may have gone but that's irrelevant really, I still want this article to live!:)Merkinsmum 17:09, 28 October 2006 (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.