Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dressed to Kill (book)


 * 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. John254 01:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Dressed to Kill (book)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

An entire article devoted to what appears to be criticism of an theory not widely documented or accepted, additionally, the book does not seem to have much objective coverage to be notable enough for inclusion. I'll also note the article is currently unbalanced and if sledged for balance, only a stub would remain. A stub with the above fringe and notability problems withstanding. Please consider deletion based on the above rationale. Thank you for your time, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC) C&gt; 11:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The fact alone that the American Cancer Society has responded to this book's claims on their web site. The theories which are presented in the book are definitely WP:FRINGEy, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an article on the book. (We have plenty of articles on fringe-science topics. There's nothing wrong with them, so long as they present a balanced viewpoint of their topics.) Zetawoof(&zeta;) 04:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable nonsense. Fulfills WP:FRINGE, in that mainstream sources have referenced (debunked) it (e.g. Scientific American, the American Cancer Society). It saddens me that this ridiculousness has reached the level that it requires official debunking, but them's the facts. The article could use a good cleansing of poor content, crappy promotional sources affiliated with the subject, and perhaps even some agenda-driven editors, but the book is notable. MastCell Talk 05:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not sufficient published sources for this utterly non-notable book. The ACS describes the theory as an intenet rumor. TYhey are essentially obliged to dubunk everything they see, but we ignore the non-notable. Possibly there might be an article on the hypothesis, but it would be better to mention it in an article. As is, it's a drastic violation of fringe and undueweight. DGG (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't endorse this book, but it's out there and it had enough impact that breast cancer and other health organizations include responses to it. We have included these responses to bring needed balance. And removing this from Wikipedia won't help people who are researching this topic. Fringe? yes.  But demonstrably notable.  Mattnad (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not even close to WP:FRINGE, which requires some sort of following. Completely non-notable. Not even worth half a mention in breast cancer. &mdash; G716  &lt;T· See my new opinion below&mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 20:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, looking at google books we can see a large number of works discussing the topic, so this is actually a widely documented theory. In particular we have ""well-known, reliable, and independent sources which discuss the theory", the ACS and Scientific America. Apparently 6.2% of US adults believe the theory, according to Prevalence and sociodemographic correlates of beliefs regarding cancer risks Juzhong (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and four million Americans have been abducted by aliens&mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 14:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and Wikipedia has an article on Alien abduction. I agree it's pseudo-science, but that on its own doesn't seem to disqualify it for inclusion in Wikipedia.Mattnad (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The content of the book is irrelevant. The article shows sufficient sources to satisfy notability. If there is an issue with how the article is approached, that's a content issue and has nothing to do with AFD. WP:NOTCENSORED so the subject matter of the book, or its point of view, mean nothing with regards to its viability as an article. 23skidoo (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the book's content, as stated, is irrelevant. We measure notability based on the coverage from reliable third parties, which this appears to have plenty of.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  18:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The book, however nonsensical, is notable.  Linguist At Large  20:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * keep Wow that is some serious stupid. Mastcell more or less summarizes things well. DGG is not completely correct here because some of the sources are not in the business of debunking every little fringe idea. In particular, Scientific American does not generally do this. We have multiple reliable sources. The article should of course reflect WP:UNDUE but that is not a reason for deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd be really happy if a few of these 'keep' editors here would put this article on their watchlist. It's not a high-traffic page, but it is POV bait, and it feels like the same people are always reverting the same kinds of edits.  (The IP address from the authors' home town, for example, has a particular way they want to spin the husband's dropping out, or being forced out, of all those grad school programs.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Amen to that. Watchlist it, my fellow editors. MastCell Talk 22:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it help to turn it into an article about the theory, not the book? Juzhong (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it would make the least bit of difference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Dressed to Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras, its complete title, as Dressed to Kill is also a 1952 novel by Peter Cheyney. There are also several other books with titles starting with "Dressed to Kill" as well... ultimately hinting at the potential need for a dab page. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reluctant keep. No matter how "wrong" or "incorrect" the book may be, there is no doubt that it has attracted widespread attention from independent, reliable sources (including USA Today last week). WP:UNDUE concerns can be dealt with by focusing on media reaction to the book; "POV bait" concerns can be addressed with due diligence (with the occasional semiprotection should the editing heat rise). IP's points above are well-taken as there are other books with the title Dressed to Kill - move to complete name per IP and dabify this page. B.Wind (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Criticism of "Dressed to Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras". If we do that, I will take a serious attempt to clean up this article&mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 20:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that may not happen, but in the meantime, please consider contributing. Regards. Mattnad (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, but do NOT rename. It is a book about a controversial topic, and criticism is therefore to be expected. JFW | T@lk  13:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.