Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change


 * 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. The provided reliable sources appear to meet the notability requirements for this article. Nakon 04:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet any of the notability criteria at WP:NBOOK. Tgeairn (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  14:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  14:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  14:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete per WP:NBOOK PianoDan (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - As an older book the reviews available online may be a little lacking, but there seems to be little doubt that it had an impact judging by the number of citations. A look on Google Scholar shows 241 citations. Studies/analyses have been conducted based on this book, for example, The Conway and Siegelman claims against religious cults: An assessment of their data published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. In Deprogramming, brainwashing and the medicalization of deviant religious groups, the authors talk about the book being "their widely read Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change...". Talked about directly (more than a brief mention, more than just a citation) in a whole lot of papers and books like Religion in America since 1945: A History (Columbia University Press via Questia), Social Theory and Social Policy: Essays in Honor of James S. Coleman (Praeger via Questia), many times in Teaching New Religious Movements (Oxford University Press via Questia), Bill Bright & Campus Crusade for Christ: The Renewal of Evangelicalism in Postwar America (University of North Carolina Press via Questia), Brief Treatments for the Traumatized: A Project of the Green Cross Foundation (Greenwood Press via Questia), New Religions as Global Cultures: Making the Human Sacred (Westview Press via Questia), The Domestic Assault of Women: Psychological and Criminal Justice Perspectives (University of British Columbia Press via Questia), New Religious Movements in the United States and Canada: A Critical Assessment and Annotated Bibliography (Greenwood Press via Questia), The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements (Oxford University Press via Questia)..... I still have about a dozen tabs open but will stop there as I know it's annoying to have a pile of paywalled links (published provided for each to crossreference elsewhere -- and to show that these are good sources). Seems like it easily passes notability standards. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 07:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I caution reliance on the Google Scholar citation count. For example, the list above includes The Conway and Siegelman claims against religious cults: An assessment of their data. The relevant passage in that article is "...In one of the most read and widely-cited articles of this latter type, Conway and Siegelman (1982), the authors of Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change (1979), claim..." which is not about the book in question here, but rather about a 1982 article. In general, this field is pretty fringe and one finds a large number of reprints, compilations, "encyclopedias", etc. all citing each other. --Tgeairn (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete Notability not established because no substantial coverage by secondary sources cited.  The one secondary source cited in the article is about an article that was a source for the book, not about the book itself.  The fact that it's mentioned and/or cited in other books and articles does not establish general notability or notability for books (which policy has fairly high standards.) Borock (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This article has been around since 2005 and still has no secondary sources cited that discuss the book itself.Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. See the long list of editorial reviews from Amazon.com: From Library Journal: In this expanded edition of the 1978 original, Conway and Siegelman continue their study of the altering of the American psyche, which has led to the rise of religious cults, super Christian sects, private citizen militias, and other phenomena that dominate today's headlines. Probably more timely now than when first published, this is an important title for academic and public libraries. Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc. From Scientific American: "Explores the way cults and other factors are causing people to give themselves over to those like David Koresh of Waco infamy, or becoming walking time bombs like Timothy McVeigh, the alleged perpetrator of the Oklahoma bombing...a powerful look at a social phenomenon that is making headlines." From The New Yorker: "Their book is judicious, sensible, well-researched and very frightening." <li>"Snapping" is an exciting and responsible and original piece of research which has taught this old poop amazing new ways to think about the human mind. -- Kurt Vonnegut</li> <li>Classic returns....More timely now than when first published....An important title for academic and public libraries. -- Library Journal</li> <li>Conway and Siegelman are onto something important..."Snapping" is a fascinating book with frightening implications. -- Edward T. Hall, author of "The Silent Language"</li> <li>Conway and Siegelman deliver a powerful book and an amazing yet responsible look at the inner workings of the human mind. -- The Examined Life: A Psychology Newsletter</li> <li>In a prophetic vein again...."Snapping" is not only fascinating and frightening reading, it is also extremely well-written....The escalating pattern of cult fanaticism and religious-political terror that the authors call a "death spiral" seems to be widening. If we do nothing to understand and ultimately reverse that pattern, it will pull more and more innocent people into its vortex. -- Cleveland Jewish News</li> <li>It is a book of investigative reporting at its best. -- New York Post</li> <li>What Woodward and Bernstein were to Watergate, Conway and Siegelman may well be to the cults. -- United Press International</li> <li>What are the social links between cultists, born-again converts, and political extremists? There are closer connections than one might think, and this labels the alteration of personality which has become an American norm, examining how mind-altering practices change the brain's information processing system. Intriguing examples of cult extremes accompany the authors' contentions. -- Midwest Book Review</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Apparently was making an eleventh-hour post as I was closing this.  Given the content of his post, I'm WP:IAR'ing and relisting this instead of closing it. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The book reviews from Library Journal, Scientific American, The New Yorker, Cleveland Jewish News, United Press International, and Midwest Book Review clearly demonstrate that the subject passes Notability. Cunard (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * More coverage provided by Amazon.com: <ol><li>"Classic Returns!....In this expanded edition of the 1978 original, Conway and Siegelman continue their study of the altering of the American psyche, which has led to the rise of religious cults, super Christian sects, private citizen militias, and other phenomena that dominate today's headlines. Probably more timely now than when first published, this is an important title for academic and public libraries." - Library Journal</li><li>"Their book is judicious, sensible, well-researched and very frightening." - The New York Times Book Review</li><li>"It is a book of investigative reporting at its best." - New York Post</li><li>"What Woodward and Bernstein were to Watergate, Conway and Siegelman may well be to the cults." - United Press International</li><li>"Credible and chilling . . . The second edition of SNAPPING is as important a resource in understanding spreading societal chaos as the first edition was in explaining the chaos of cults." - Minneapolis Star-Tribune</li><li>"Important. . . . this book provides a tool to exercise judgment, monitor incoming information, and interpret what has become an increasingly intrusive battle for our minds. . . . At its core, it is language that holds the key to our mental health or to our destruction. What George Orwell's 'Animal Farm' is to literature, 'SNAPPING' is to non-fiction." - Albuquerque Journal</li><li>"In a prophetic vein. . . . SNAPPING is not only fascinating and frightening reading, it is also extremely well-written. . . . The escalating pattern of cult fanaticism and religious-political terror that the authors call a 'death spiral' seems to be widening. If we do nothing to understand and ultimately reverse that pattern, it will pull more and more innocent people into its vortex." - Cleveland Jewish News</li><li>"For anyone threatened with snapping, this book is a dispassionate, valuable study of an often frightening phenomenon." - People</li><li>"There is no doubt that Conway and Siegelman are opening the door on areas of human understanding that have never been examined and that are in urgent need of study." - New Society</li><li>"SNAPPING is an exciting and responsible and original piece of research that has taught this old poop amazing new ways to think about the human mind." - Kurt Vonnegut</li><li>"SNAPPING is by far the best and most scientific treatment of the cult problem yet published. For the scientist, politician, clergy or parent, it is valuable and wonderfully readable." - John Gordon Clark, M.D. Asst. Clinical Professor of Psychiatry Harvard Medical School</li><li>"Conway and Siegelman . . . place cultic behavior in the wider context of the communication revolution of our time. . . Indeed, SNAPPING unfolds as a traveling detective investigation. . . . they very capably trace and analyze the course of the phenomenon and . . . contribute greatly to our understanding of it." - The Cult Observer</li><li>"Conway and Siegelman are onto something important. . . . SNAPPING is a fascinating book with frightening implications." - Edward T. Hall, author of The Silent Language</li><li>"[The] classic book on cults, still the best book ever. . . . Believe me, folks, these are the real experts." - Geraldo Rivera</li></ol> Cunard (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete per Kitfoxxe- Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Please keep. I will try to improve the article by citing texts that define terms correctly and adding citations and reliable sources. SNAPPING is now a classic reference book on this subject matter and time period. The book has been used as a reference for many articles, dissertations, MA theses and research projects in many fields including religion, psychology, medicine, and newer fields actually dealing with deprogramming and the distinctions made regarding the technologies of "information overload", "brainwashing" -- "snapping" and the "epidemic" of cult phenomena, and now there may even be possible current sub-categories that deal with this "disease" / phenomena within politics, multilevel marketing, social media, etc. The fact that users search wiki to FIND "anything" wiki has on this book as a reference for others is a sign that Wiki is a viable source and so it is important for wiki to keep the book. I agree that the article needs work but I will need time to get and link the right sources, etc. Again, in terms of its "classic" status as a reference, this book seems to stand on its own merits and the original research of its authors apart from any other books they may have authored.Startarrant (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)startarrant

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I'm very confused how WP:NBOOK can be cited as reason for a delete when it clearly says "two or more ... this includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." (emphasis mine). Looking up there are clearly more than two reviews from notable and reputable sources. —  Noah  16:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - The above are Blurbs and don't meet the "non-trivial", "independent" requirement for reviews (see the footnotes in NBOOK). They are solicited by the publisher (and some don't appear to be about this book).  Thanks, Tgeairn (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. Keeping my keep for now... even with some percentage of what has been mentioned above being discarded there seems to be enough citations of this book to establish notability. Such as: 1, 2, 3. —  Noah  17:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood. I don't dispute that the book has been cited by others, I just don't think it meets the notability requirements for a standalone article.  Thanks for the link to 1973 Nervous Breakdown - it looks interesting and I'm going to find a copy of that for myself. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't read it myself but it does look appealing. I suppose the opening Warhol epigraph was meant to be ironic? The '70s were most certainly not empty. —  Noah  17:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete No independent sources in article. It does not matter how many random Amazon blurbs you post here, these are not sources for the notability of the article. MicroPaLeo (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No independent sources in article. – There is no deadline. It does not matter how many random Amazon blurbs you post here, these are not sources for the notability of the article. – the snippets I posted from Amazon.com are small quotes from reviews of the book by Library Journal, Scientific American, The New Yorker, Cleveland Jewish News, United Press International, Midwest Book Review, The New York Times Book Review, New York Post, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Albuquerque Journal, People, and New Society. It is ignorant to say that these small quotes are all blurbs. There are a few blurbs above (like the ones cited to people rather than actual newspaper or magazine publications). But the overwhelming majority are reviews from newspaper or magazine publications, which do not write promotional blurbs for books. Those reviews strongly support 's assertion that "As an older book the reviews available online may be a little lacking, but there seems to be little doubt that it had an impact judging by the number of citations." Cunard (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't add comments in the middle of my comments. I've refactored the discussion so that our comments are not interspersed. I disagree that the article must have the sources. The essay WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP is applicable. has expressed interest in rewriting the article. Per WP:NOTDEADLINE, we should give him and any other interested users the time to do so. Cunard (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Article does not indicate notability. I can make up anything and post it on Wikipedia, but it won't be kept just because I say my friend will rewrite it. MicroPaLeo (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * From your essay on NOTDEADLINE, "We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established." This supports deletion by suggesting you should have waited for notability to be established to write the article. MicroPaLeo (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - The argument above that the quotes from Amazon are "blurbs" is just false. For your referencing pleasure, here are a few of the full citations:
 * Library Journal -- Book Review: Psychology & Psychiatry -- Conway, Flo & Jim Siegelman. Snapping: America's Epidemic of sudden personality change. [review] Library Journal. 6/1/1978, Vol. 103 Issue 11, p1180-1183. 4p.
 * Library Journal -- Book Reviews: Nonfiction. By: Rogers, Michael. Library Journal. 12/1/1995, Vol. 120 Issue 20, p165. 1/8p. (note: review of the expanded edition)
 * New York Times -- Paperbacks: New and noteworthy. (1980, Jan 06). New York Times (1923-Current File) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/121183091?accountid=12725
 * People Magazine brief review in "Picks and Pans"
 * People Magazine full article
 * also just happened to run across this one at NYT -- a primary article indeed, but one in the New York Times which was seemingly written in connection with this book: By Jim Siegelman and,Flo Conway. (1979, Nov 15). Still, jonestownism runs on. New York Times (1923-Current File) Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/123920755?accountid=12725 --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 02:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I am still discussing deletion of the article, not of this AfD. When I do a google search, blogs and groups come up, not these book teviews, and, with so many words of discussion, you don't find these sources notable enough to add to the article, only to discuss here, for some reaon I am not interested in exploring. MicroPaLeo (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "I googled it and nothing good came up" is an unusually poor argument. WP:N is very clear about both of these issues: where notability is concerned, the sources must exist. That you don't see them in your google search is not relevant. That they're not cited in the article is not relevant. In the first place, there are links and citations above that should make finding the sources fairly straightforward. In the second, that's what maintenance templates are for (e.g. Template:Refimprove). --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 03:12, 18 February 2015 (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.