Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rushing Woman's Syndrome

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 Libby Weaver. More concretely: Consensus was that there was not notability, no argument was presented that would preclude a redirect and ATD prefers one to none, no prejudice against future editorial work determining if there is material that can be merged into the target. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rushing Woman's Syndrome

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-published book that gained some limited exposure in popular press recently. Unfortunately, its description makes it out to be a purported medical/psychological condition....with questionnaires in popular press. Given it gets exactly zero hits in Google scholar, there are not any sources let alone secondary sources to support this. Hence it is misleading at best and detracts from the Sum of All Knowledge by its being here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but some chopping is justifiable. The article as is links articles about the book in three different newspapers which meets GNG. (which closely resembles part 1 of the special guideline for books) I understand that someone with a COI may have tried to puff up the article and so some of the substandard sources may have to go. I understand that we should not portray it as making any accepted medical claim. But that's a matter for a few strategic distancings like "The author's thesis is...", not deletion. Wnt (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I should admit that I missed that some of the media references in the article were actually not usable per GNG because they were just the author going on about herself; the article as it stood actually didn't stand the test. But there were articles like [1][2], which is why I hadn't expected the ones in the article to be so unusuable for notability. I think that the "syndrome" appears to be notable and worth documenting as a social and marketing phenomenon. Wnt (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep. It's quackery. I have deleted a few inappropriate references. However the remaining four references are adequate to demonstrate nobility of the book and the concept—even though the "syndrome" does not exist. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Libby Weaver which is only a stub]]. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the merge is a good idea, but there shouldn't be any admin action involved for that. The page history should be left unmolested, and the page should not be protected against a future reversal of the merge if content about the "syndrome" becomes available from other authors. That could happen at any time, but probably won't. :) Wnt (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have little doubt that a redirect from Rushing Woman's Syndrome to Libby Weaver would be part of any merge. The redirect page would contain the page history, so that should hopefully meet your concerns. --RexxS (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article as it now stands (devoid of irrelevant refs) doesn't meet GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Its notability depends upon a single piece of reliable news coverage in the Australian and that is devoted to debunking the topic. I don't believe the Idealog blog is a reliable source to illustrate significant coverage - who heard of it? It's possible that the author, Libby Weaver, is notable from the sources that mention her - but her notability is not inherited by the book. --RexxS (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent coverage or charting in a well-known best-sellers list. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or if Libby Weaver is notable Merge NealeFamily (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The idealog.co.nz is a good book review. The theaustralian.com.au source is not a book review. There are no other sources cited right now, and one source only is not sufficient coverage to establish notability. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BK (and WP:MEDRS). Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.