Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace


 * 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   redirect to Dave Grossman (author). Black Kite (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article has existed for several years. Unsourced, no evidence of notability presented. During a quick Google search I could not find any notable reviews, only reviews from special-interest websites and a personal essay written by a government employee. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and make a redirect Already discussed in as much detail as necessary in the article on the author, Dave Grossman (author). I don't think this article is acceptable, nor is a full article necessary. A summary as extended as this one, of a non-fiction book that is anything short of famous, is usually considered as promotional for the authors ideas. See also On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, which probably should be handled similarly, though it is much better known.   As for reviews, though, see this article, which may be what is meant by a personal essay & work of a government employee, but it's from a published work that's a RS. the book is however in 350 libraries, and a few works that may possible be linking to it are listed on the book's worldcat search. I admit my view for deletion is founded to some degree on the nature of the present article. Blatant promotionalism like this should be removed, and then if really justified a proper article written, but things need to be kept in proportion. Not every book that may technically meet NBOOK needs a separate article: sometimes a suitable coverage in the article on the author is more appropriate, or even simply justified as our reaction to promotional writing, which should not be rewarded.  DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Freely admitting that this is a weak argument for keep, I'm going to throw it out there. Given the specialized nature of the book, I wouldn't expect to find it widely reviewed in mainstream media channels. The target audience doesn't go to the NY Times to find a book on the psychology of combat, they go to AR15.com or PoliceOne. That said, I did find some relevant occurrences. This multipage review is found on the Dept of Veterans Affairs website. Specifically, the author (favorably) reviews the book for use by the VA in understanding VA claims related to psychological problems related to combat. This NPR link  is admittedly an interview with Grossman, but the interview is because he is the author of On Combat, making him the subject matter expert they wanted. In my search, I found a lot of reliable sources that used him for interviews etc, citing him as the author of this book. This link  from Camp Lejune Naval Hospital lists the book as a resource for understanding PTSD. Lastly, the book is on the recommended reading list for those taking the Moral, Ethical and Psychological Dimensions of War course from the US Army Infantry School. Arguably, that is an endorsement of the book by the Infantry School. Again, I fully realize that his is not a very strong argument and anticipate it failing. I wouldn't oppose a merge and redirect. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I'll go with Niteshift36's sources here. They are not overwhelming as mentioned but given the specialist nature of the topic, and the book appears to be recommended and in use by professionals don't see a compelling reason to delete. --  GreenC  18:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and the cogent reasoning of DGG. --Randykitty (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think it's ridiculous that this has been open for 28 days. It should have been closed on Dec 23 as a no consensus after being extended twice. Instead, it's just left hanging here, trying to attract more delete votes. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're assuming to much, I don't think there is any intent on this not yet having been closed. Any admin who comes by can close this. In fact, there's a noticeboard somewhere (sorry, the name/link escapes me right now) where you can request closure for discussions, including AfDs, that are overdue. --Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 30 December 2013 (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.