Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychopathia Sexualis (Heinrich Kaan)


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Psychopathia Sexualis (Heinrich Kaan)

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

Fails Notability (books) -- lacks multiple reliable independent sources mentioning the topic in a non-trivial way. Only has one source currently, and that one's quite trivial (half a sentence worth of discussion in the whole article). There's no dispute that this book did exist, but it's not important enough to get anything but extremely passing mention in other references. It's a historical footnote at best to be mentioned in an article about history of sex studies or something, if that, not for a full article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was about to write a hurried WTF? at this nom, then calmed down long enough to realize it was not the Krafft-Ebing book. Does not deserve its own entry - even the Kraft Ebbing book doesn't get an entry, the page it once had got merged with Richard von Krafft-Ebing. An older version of the Kraft-Ebing page mentioned the Kaan book, and the possible confusion between them. Perhaps that mention can be re-instated, then we can delete the nominated page. Hairhorn (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And, oddly enough, the famous book by this title doesn't even have an article at this time, it's just a redirect, so there's absolutely no reason for this unknown book to have an article. DreamGuy (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG. See this Google Books search, this one, and this one. None of these are passing mentions. Cunard (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to take your word about the second book, and the third one is definitely a passing reference: Kaan is only mentioned once, for inventing the term; all the other references are to the Krafft-Ebbing book. So merge still seems like a good idea to me. Hairhorn (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are ALL passing references. None of them discuss the book for more than a paragraph, and some not even that long. DreamGuy (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I followed some of the leads provided by Cunard. Gbook search returns many references to this 1844 (or was it 1843?) work in recent and not-so-recent books. Definitely notable by any standard. Sure, the article has improvement potential, also on the ref side, but this is no valid reason for deletion Power.corrupts (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think people confuse sources that demonstate that somethign reliably exists and can be used as a cite for a mention in another article and sources that demonstrate enough notability to get a whole Wikipedia article. If these kind of references demonstrate enough notability for a separate article than virtually nothing would fail to get an article. DreamGuy (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment If the article is kept it should possibly be Psychopathia Sexualis (Kaan book) per Naming_conventions_(books). Шизомби (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment to DreamGuy, the citations below are NOT merely passing mention
 * Kaan work is discussed as the first of a kind on pp 51-52, (in footnote 40 there is a ref to Kaan's work being subjected to analysis by Foucault (see below), on p 84 Kaan work is compared with Krafft-Ebing's
 * (the Foucault text), see pp 233-234 which is not merely passing mention, Kaan's work is identified as "the first text". Kaan is mentioned at some 15 other occasions in that book
 * only snippet views, but Kaan's work appears to be discussed over pages 435-437, and there is a verbatim quote on p 437.
 * Add to this the 350 other Gbook hits, old and new, which would indicate that even the most stringent interpretation of WP:GNG is fulfilled. Certainly, your claim It's a historical footnote at best needs more work on your part.  Maybe the later Krafft-Ebing book with the same title was merged once into the Richard von Krafft-Ebing article - I consider this irrelevant for this AfD. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute the book's existence or its being the earliest book with that title. But, as usual, gross number of hits means little. A quick troll through 350 hits shows many, many single mentions (once in a book-length work) and many mentions that are in fact mentions of the Krafft-Ebing book, not of Kaan's book; Kaan often shows up as an aside or a footnote. (This happens in the second hit; it happens even in one of the books you single out above, Der Trieb zum erzählen.) There are also some irrelevant hits: the third hit is a book review from 1845. If someone wanted to rescue the article it may be worth saving, but in its current incarnation I don't think it's worth more than a merge. Hairhorn (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody is disputing the book's existence or its being the earliest book with that title. What is being disputed are the reasoning behind the proposed deletion, above all the claim that it fails WP:GNG. The 2008 book that you say I "single out" above, Der Trieb zum erzählen p51, a scholar Tardieu is quoted for questioning (the topic is masturbation, homosexuality, etc) if "these [sexual] vices have other causes than plain spoiled moral or if it is some sort of sexual psychopathy, a term in which he is indebted to Kaan" (my own mediocre translation). Kaan's work is then referred to again in footnote 40 at the following page 52, it's not "passing mention", the footnote is 10 lines long and discusses amongst other Foucault's use of Kaan's book in his discourse analysis.  (I also reffed Foucault's book above.)  Kaan also pops up in footnote 41, (the footnotes take up about half that page), and the Kaan book is cited three other places in that book (reference sections etc). To me, this is not "trivial passing mention". Add to this Foucault's use of Kaan in his lectures/analysis of masturbation and Oh, all the other 350 Gbook hits which I did not bother to check (many dont even have snippet views).  I am absolutely no subject matter expert here, but if a 2008 academic book mentions a work written 150 years earlier because somebody is indebted to Kaan's new term/concept or whatever, then the old work is very likely to meet the notability guidelines (note they are merely guidelines) - the old work is certainly able to meet Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability. Surely Heinrich Kaan could also have a page.  The ideas of this book could also be laid out there, this would be my proposed outcome of this AfD.  Kaan's views have long gone out of fashion, and the same-title later book by Krafft-Ebing may be much more famous (I know neither of them) - but Wikipedias inclusion criteria are no doubt fulfilled in Kaan's case. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I just thought it was odd that you trotted out Der Trieb zum erzählen as an example of a reference to Kaan, when all but one of the uses of "Psychopathia Sexualis" in the book are references to Krafft-Ebing. A reference on one page and in one footnote seems like a paradigm case of "passing mention". Hairhorn (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Information Nominee was involved in a related (not so elegantly handled) dispute which was taken to Wikiquette Power.corrupts (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And what's that got to do with anything other than trying to poison the well? Wasn't much of a dispute... someone put in bad info, I removed it, they flew off the handle. DreamGuy (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Only indicative that you seem to hold Kraff-Ebing's work dear and have some sort of antipathy against Kaan's. I have identified 7-8 fairly recent scholary works that someway or another provides a perspective on Kaan's work, including two doctoral theses, of which one dr. thesis specifically deals with Kaan.  Yet, your first action is to notability tag my newly created Kaan page (is this person even notable at all?) - and even state, that you don't think doctoral theses are reliable sources (!)  I have to stop now, I have a lot to do in real life. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Doctoral theses are not reliable sources as far as I know and from any discussion I've seen on them here. They are not published with editorial oversight... any doctoral candidate can claim anything, that doesn't mean anyone agrees with it. The notability tag deserves to be there, and it's not that I have any bias against the guy (don't know him from Adam), it's that I want policies to be followed. But, really, you seem to want to get into a whole conversation other than whether this current article should be deleted. Please stay on topic. DreamGuy (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note I took my own advice and created an article on Heinrich Kaan. This page Psychopathia Sexualis (Heinrich Kaan) could now be redirected there. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge - Comparing the two books would seem to make some sense but there does seem to be room enough for both. As an alternative merging to Heinrich Kaan would be acceptable as well. Deletion not needed in any case, improvement is what is called for. Google scholar gets 50+ hits so I find it hard to believe a good book article is impossible here. 160+ years after the publishing I think it's fair to say there is a multitude of reliable sources and scholarly looks at the work that a good article can certainly emerge. Add in the multitude of likely offline sources, given the age of the works involved and this seems like something that an encyclopedia should have. -- Banj e  b oi   00:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep You aren't going to find any book reviews for something published that long ago. WP:BK says We suggest instead a more common sense approach which considers whether the book has been widely cited or written about, whether it has been recently reprinted, the fame that the book enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of literature. Use common sense, not just mindlessly look for notable third party references.  I believe this book has "been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement."    D r e a m Focus  01:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the new article on Kaan, which now contains all the info from this article. pablo hablo. 05:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe both Kaan, and the book, are significant enough to merit individual articles. Geo Swan (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2009 (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.