Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satan, His Psychotherapy and Cure by the Unfortunate Dr. Kassler, J.S.P.S. (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Satan, His Psychotherapy and Cure by the Unfortunate Dr. Kassler, J.S.P.S.
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article on a book sourced only to Amazon.com and Goodreads. BD2412 T 23:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Let's have some modern source analysis, then. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  BD2412  T 23:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources in the first AfD need to be added to the article, but this appears to be a case of neglect rather than non-notability. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The previous AfD was twelve years ago. It is apparent that no one cares to improve the subject. BD2412  T 15:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Then since it's fixable, please withdraw the nomination and go do so. Jclemens (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that the sources cited as a basis for keeping from a less scrupulous time stand up today. BD2412  T 18:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete I found a one-paragraph review in the May 15, 1982 Library Journal which essentially pans the book. That's all. Keep thanks to Jfire. Lamona (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The book was published in 1982; most reviews are offline or paywalled. But it was reviewed in:
 * The New York Times
 * Kirkus
 * Science Fiction and Fantasy Book Review
 * L.A. Times
 * Hartford Courant
 * Minneapolis Star Tribune
 * Chicago Tribune
 * The Sydney Morning Herald
 * and quite a few others. Those were all prior to the book's adaptation into a screenplay, which conferred additional coverage. Jfire (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep Extensive reviews. The New York Times and Los Angeles Times reviews cited above are enough to qualify for notability. BruceThomson (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY, thanks to the good work of . Bearian (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep due to several reviews, including the New York Times and LA Times. Archrogue (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2023 (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.