Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forensic aspects of dissociative identity disorder


 * 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.  Sandstein  20:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Forensic aspects of dissociative identity disorder

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

Not notable book (see WP:NB), no independent sources found on Google News or Google. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   —Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable for only showing book listings on Google and nothing related to the book on Google News. Could also be redirect to Dissociative identity disorder. If not, nuke it. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  20:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I confirm the lack of results for Google and Google Books (adding "quotes" makes the search more specific). Google web search only produces web-based book sellers, no independent reviews. The book was published in September 2008, by the way, which makes notability even less likely. Han-Kwang (t) 15:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The book is notable because the book’s editors have been well known in their field for many years. Several article contributors are also well known, including Valerie Sinason, who has published 13 books and over 70 professional papers, Bettina Overkamp, who is an executive board member of the European Society for Trauma and Dissociation, Phil Mollon, who has written 5 books, Joan Coleman, a founding member of the Ritual Abuse Information Network and Support - better known as RAINS), Thorsten Becker, who received the “German Child Protection Award’ in 1994 and Wanda Karriker who was interviewed on Court TV in the United States as an expert in the field. The book is also recommended by two famous researchers, Dr. Arnon Bentovim and Sir Richard Bowlby. The book’s publisher, Karnac, has been well known as a reliable source of scientific books for several years. Aspecttable (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Notability of the authors does not imply notability of each publication. You are only giving arguments to have articles about the authors, which might then mention the book as a publication. The book itself is not (yet) notable. Han-Kwang (t) 08:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't find reviews. Without the existence of those, the article could not possibly be neutral and unbiased, nor supported by reliable sources. Narayanese (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete for failing WP:BN. Also see the related deletion discussion here for the Extreme Abuse Survey, which is (I believe) a chapter in the book.  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 12:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above wikipedia discussion does not apply. This is not a survey, but a book. The topic of dissociative identity disorder is notable and the publisher is well respected. Aspecttable (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Two out of four isn't bad, but the better two are the book itself, and the author. The topic of a book, and the publisher of a book do not make the case for notability.  This fails Notability (books) pretty clearly to me, so could you provide an argument for one of the criteria at Notability (books) before I vote?  Thanks Sentriclecub (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails Notability (books). JFW | T@lk  21:10, 9 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.