Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covert hypnosis

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. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Covert hypnosis

Covert hypnosis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

None of this is written based on reliable sources, doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability Xyzzyplugh (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree, I two of the books referenced here and it seems accurate. Webhat (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and improve Poorly written article with what might be original research (the cites are books that I don't own...) but the topic itself is notable enough for inclusion. The term itself gets over 50k ghits (none are noted on the page) so this is a matter of the article needing improving, mainly trimming out the fat. As for the nom (nothing personal), it is flawed in that WP:RS says that published books can be used for sources in most cases (which the article uses for sources), and WP:V says that the information must be verfiable and not verified. Needs work, not deletion. Pharmboy (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to Hypnosis. A whole article dedicated to this topic may violate WP:FRINGE. The sources being cited aren't exactly reliable, as they're single page citations out of larger books about the occult or hypnotic suggestion. The "further reading" section is entirely advertisements that were probably inserted by their authors, so the verifiability of this article is marginal, at best. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Pharmboy. We don't delete badly sourced stuff just because it's badly sourced: that normally happens because of notability concerns about the topic. Here, per Pharmboy, we shouldn't have that concern. The article should at least be given a chance to improve via tagging before we give up on it. Mangojuice^talk 16:03, 30 January 2008 (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.