Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme Abuse Survey


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Extreme Abuse Survey

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

This article is about a survey published as book, but it does not assert the notability of the book/survey using reliable, third-party sources. VG &#x260E; 09:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:SOAP, WP:OR, WP:NOR and WP:RS. There is an author biography as the last paragraph, which leads to some WP:OWN problems. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 13:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The study is notable because it has been written about in several reliable sources and there have been several presentations at international conferences about it.
 * Becker, T. (2008). Re-searching for new perspectives: Ritual abuse/ritual violence as ideologically motivated crime.In R. Noblitt & P. Noblitt (Eds.), Ritual abuse in the twenty-first century (pp. 237-260). Bandon, OR: Robert D. Reed.
 * Becker, T., Karriker, W., Overkamp, B., & Rutz, C. (2008). The Extreme Abuse Survey: Preliminary findings regarding dissociative identity disorder. In A. Sachs & G. Galton (Eds.), Forensic aspects of dissociative identity disorder (pp. 32-49).London: Karnac.
 * Rutz, C., Becker, T., Overkamp, B., & Karriker, W. (2008). Exploring commonalities reported by adult survivors of extreme Abuse: Preliminary empirical findings.In R. Noblitt & P. Noblitt (Eds.), Ritual abuse in the twenty-first century (pp. 31-84). Bandon, OR: Robert D. Reed.
 * presentations at conferences about the study include :
 * United Nations 51st Session of the Committee on the Status of Women, New York, NY.
 * Tenth Annual Ritual Abuse, Secretive Organizations and Mind Control Conference, Windsor Locks, CT.
 * International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation, Philadelphia, PA.
 * Fourteenth Annual Northern California Child Sexual Abuse Awareness Conference: Sacramento, CA.
 * 13th International Conference on Violence, Abuse and Trauma, San Diego, CA.
 * the author biography paragraph has been deleted Baawip80 (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Yes it is truly shocking that the researchers who created the survey have published their findings in books edited by their SRA advocacy pals. The fact that advocates of a fringe position support the work of other advocates does not establish notability in the least.PelleSmith (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The books are notable. The opinion "advocacy pals" is not proven. Extrabreeze (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Possibly Keep, but only with considerable attention to context and POV and RSs. The article does not exactly make it clear that the survey is dealing with not just satanic ritual abuse, but abuse by government mind control experiments, and various even more unlikely things going up to abduction by UFOs. If the survey has been noticed by mainstream work at all, there is undoubtedly published criticism that needs to be included, which I imagine will to say that the questionnaire is first of all a survey of self selected people who responded to an announcement, that the announcement specifically stated the phenomena were real and asked their help by participation in a survey intended to prove it, ! As might be expected from such a study group selection, the questions are suggestive, many listing possible symptoms and asking how frequently the person has had them. . It even asks questions designed to suggest particular names and codes used by abusers,  If there is not yet such criticism, then there are not yet RSs. I see the supporters of this article have listed no such study, or any analysis by any uninvolved people. However, even taken at face value, it's a useful study in credulity. Absent such analysis, the article needs to be written as one would report any other self-documented pseudoscience.   DGG (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 02:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No notability established here at all. DGG's appraisal of the survey seems correct as well, from what I can tell.  If notability is established by reliable secondary sources in the relevant fields we can have another crack at it, but Wikipedia is not a repository for every non-notable study that has yet to receive appropriate criticism or secondary analysis.PelleSmith (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. All "sources" are self-published or otherwise non-notable.  If some reliable source can be found, and the content of this article sourced to such sources, then those sentences might remain, but there's no reason to believe that keeping this would be helpful to creating a new article on the survey.  (Note: I got here from reading the neutral note on Talk:Satanic ritual abuse.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - in order to assert notability there must be evidence of interest by reliable, third-party sources discussing the survey itself, not merely reporting the results. We do not have a page on every single journal article that is published for the same reason.  Probably the best notability guideline to look at is Notability (books), which it does not pass.  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 14:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly Keep but in a greatly altered form as per DGG above. It could either be part of the SA article or a daughter article. The issue about Satanic Abuse/Mind Control is not just a question of whether or not it exists (and here should state I personally am of the "does not exist" camp). However, the whole thing is a bit of a social phenomenon in its own right. I see the questionnaire is self-selected but assuming those responses in the P-EAS actually are the various professionals they state they are, its still part of a phenomenon that's worthy of consideration and an article. In that respect its no different to any other pseudoscientific topic. Surely there must be some criticism/commentary relating to this survey by now?Fainites barley 16:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Found this at the SRA page. It is a social phenomenon and deserves mention. The P-EAS responses are from professionals. It has been presented at international conferences. Karnac is a respectable publisher. Extrabreeze (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please review the policy for deletion, guidelines regarding notability, guidelines regarding notability of books and arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion. The rule of thumb is if the subject of the article is covered  by reliable, third-party sources, it is a legitemate topic.  A lack of separate sources that discuss the survey itself suggests that it's not notable.  Reporting the results isn't the same thing as a discussion of the survey.  You are mixing reliability (publisher) with notability, and the second source is self-published, making it useless for virutally anything on wikipedia.  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Going to the notability article you put above, the survey does have significant coverage. Extrabreeze (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, integrate the new sources into the page. I'm assuming you have new sources because the current ones merely report the results of the survey, they do not discuss why the survey is notable (in addition to the second being unreliable).  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 15:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is not about the social phenomenon in general, but about a specific survey thereof. VG &#x260E; 19:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as per reasons explained above. —Cesar Tort 18:54, 6 October 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.