Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snakes in Suits


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  J 947  03:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Snakes in Suits

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article appears to function for spam advertisement promotion purposes. Only citation is to a hyperlink to Amazon.com. Article appears intended to drive readers to make a purchase at Amazon.com. Sagecandor (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The OP misses the point that the book is co-authored by Robert D. Hare who is considered by most to be the world's leading guru on psychopathy. The book is also mentioned in Robert D. Hare. It is one of the pioneering books in its area although many more have now followed. Criticisms of the article content may require cleanup but are not grounds for AFD.--Penbat (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: I must disagree with the reasoning for deletion. Article content is not a valid reason for deletion per se (see WP:ARTN), I would submit that notability is the guideline being questioned in this case. Granted, there is a degree of promotion, and that must be fixed but this is not a valid reason to delete. I have found many sources covering this book:  . This passes WP:NBOOK. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP and "Article content does not determine notability",, if "Article appears to function for spam advertisement promotion purposes. Only citation is to a hyperlink to Amazon.com.", do some WP:BOLD editing and get rid of it, done (yaay!, will take a bit longer to enable removal of the cleanup tags:)), one site i check for an indication of notability is WorldCat, if plenty of libraries have copies and/or theres been a lot of editions then there may be some reviews out there ie. with "Snakes" it is in around 750 libraries, a gsearch has brought up some reviews, i've incorporated them into a "Reception" section, 1 or 2 of them may be discounted by some editors as "trade/trivial", but there appears to be enough. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment There is absolutely no question of the book's notability - Google Scholar says it is cited by 827 other books and journal articles. Plenty as well listed in Highbeam. It's a slam dunk as a keep.--Penbat (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep -- definitely notable. Here are a few reviews:
 * Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work. Mourik, Orli Van. Psychology Today, Sep 01, 2006; Vol. 39, No. 5. The article reviews the book "Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work," by Paul B... more
 * The dark side of charisma. Baines, David. Canadian Business, May 22, 2006; Vol. 79, No. 11, p. 142-143. A review of the book "Snakes in Suits: When Psycopaths Go to Work," by Robert Hare and... more
 * The book was apparently a #1 best seller in Canada in business books, as noted in "Business bestsellers". Canadian Business, 00083100, 9/25/2006, Vol. 79, Issue 19. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm not very well familiar with this topic but the subject of the article seems to pass WP:NBOOK. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, there are lots of reviews of Snakes, so it easily meets no. 1 of WP:BOOKCRIT, have listed some more in the article (thanks to and  for the above). Coolabahapple (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Almost certainly also meets no. 5 of WP:BOOKCRIT as well as one of the authors, Robert D. Hare, has guru status in the psychopathy field.--Penbat (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article does seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NBOOK.  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   19:57, 2 March 2017 (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.