Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Mgm|(talk) 10:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse[edit]
- Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Fails to pass notability for books; two reviews in scholarly (not popular) press do not pass criteria 1, which requires reviews to address a general audience. It has won no awards, inspired no motion pictures or movements, it's not the subject of a course, and the author is not notable. The creator of the article is a confirmed sockpuppet of the banned User:ResearchEditor, now permablocked for sockpuppeting to evade a community ban. The book has existed for 15 years and made no real impact. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, clearly a rather trivial book regardless of its merits. Nyttend (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep – there seem to be a couple of serious reviews about this book, so I am inclined to say that there is some notability established here, but not much at all (hence the weak). MuZemike 02:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Reviews in scholarly press might not pass the first guideline of WP:BK, but they do pass WP:N which is not superseded by WP:BK. JulesH (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 22:45, 7 April 2009 (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.