Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Illusions de la Psychanalyse

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 no consensus. Michig (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Les Illusions de la Psychanalyse[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOKS. There's one reference that endorces the book, but multiple are required per the referenced standard. I'm having a hard time finding more, and think the article doesn't meet WP's guidelines for notability. Mikeblas (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is well known that there is a lot of interest in (and controversy over) psychoanalysis in France. I would be surprised if there were not sources to show that the book is notable, even if they are in French and even if they cannot be found straight away through a simple Google search. Is the article to be deleted simply because not enough work was done to find sources? I was able to rapidly find a review here and another here, and probably more exist that might not be so easy to find. Jacques van Rillaer himself certainly seems notable, since there is an article about him on French Wikipedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe this AfD discussion has been miscategorized by being placed under (Organisation, corporation, or product). The relevant page states that the category is for "all businesses, schools, government agencies, non-profit organizations." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in case it isn't obvious that what I wrote above is a keep vote. The source already cited in the article and the two reviews above should be enough to establish notability. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I only see one reference in the article. WP:NBOOKS demands "two or more". Adding the additional references to the article certainly would help it; you should do that. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I should be able to do that within the next couple of days. In the meanwhile, I do hope no one deletes the article because I didn't move quickly enough. Not everything needs to be done at breakneck speed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources added. What more need I do? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So far as I am concerned you need do no more. The independent coverage is sufficient. Thincat (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2015 (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.