Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forensics of repressed memory

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2014 March 29. The result of the deletion review was endorsed.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 delete. → Call me Hahc21 16:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forensics of repressed memory[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic fork of Repressed memory by new user. Named 'Forensics of repressed memory' is appears to be a how-to manual, something wikipedia is explicitly not. There are a number of references, but none of them appear to be clearly about the 'forensics of repressed memory' raising the prospect of WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm of the position that this is a potentially encyclopedia topic, but, while this article includes references (although in an unorthodox way, by Wikipedia standards), it appears to be almost entirely WP:OR, as though the author selected Wikipedia as a vehicle of publication. I note that the author has no editing experience at Wikipedia prior to the creation of this article, and is likely merely not yet well-versed in the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH policies. I would delete without prejudice to creation of an article on this subject that is limited to consolidating published information from reliable sources; rather than original research synthesized from it. TJRC (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no original research in the article, and no synthesis. This article contains only a compilation of existing research on the topic, cited throughout the article. This is a hot topic (as noted by several state supreme court cases in the US, England and other areas), where this side of the issue is only now beginning to be hotly debated. Within 18 months this subject will be of major importance to the general public. It is an area where the public needs access to this information, and where virtually no non-pay sources exist for it (over $500 in article fees were spent to get the secondary source material used to write the first draft). While it is true that I have no idea how the citation system works, other editors can convert the citations.

If you don't like the tone used, edit it to better fit. The basic scientific information is in the article as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.226.254 (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Users editing in areas where much of the content is behind paywalls are reminded of Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange which is commonly of help in such situations. Additionally a significant proportion of editors have access to university libraries. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seeing how these cases are investigated is very useful. That their are was of corroborating a story was very helpful to learn. The article was obviously written by someone that knows the subject matter, but doesn't know the wikipedia style of writing. But that is not reason to delete any article. It is reason for other editors to contribute to making it a better article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.212.114 (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am a CJ student and this article is by far the best resource I have found on this topic. Clear, straight forward and unbiased. This takes the middle ground in a contentious topic, and that's hard to do in this subject. The discussion on methods of corroboration are extremely hard to find, let alone find done as well as this was. Way to useful to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.132.166 (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this seems to have gotten a "Start" rating from the WikiProject Law. According to the project guidelines, the article should not be subject to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.132.166 (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I exported it to v:Forensics of repressed memory, and any potentially dangerous material there may be deleted. note: The ip addresses come from the same general location, I suggest to be careful not to recruit. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 01:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would not be surprised to see others from my class showing up here. This is one of the research topics we could choose from, and this article was approved as a source (we generally can not use wikipedia as a source). Its loss would not be a happy day in my class for anyone doing a repressed memory project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.132.166 (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to elaborate on this class that's using this as a source? I can find no references to it. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTESSAY: this isn't the type of thing that should be in an encyclopedia. @IPs, that it's useful has no bearing here, and it's been exported per Sidelight now anyways. ansh666 04:40, 26 March 2014 (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.