Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control
- 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. Withdrawn ]
APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This appears to be mostly original research using primary sources. Are we sure the article subject is actually notable? It's a task force that produced a report that was never published. —valereee (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- withdrawn The problem I think was that googling the article title didn't work; the name of the task force was what needed to be googled. I've added several sources to a further reading section. I don't have access to full texts of these, but there is definitely sufficient coverage. —valereee (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. —valereee (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- keep. Notable subject. talk) 12:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)]
- Staszek Lem, none of the sources seem to be books? They're all primary documents, aren't they? —valereee (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Have you heard about due diligence? Aslo, that AfD is not a cleanup? talk) 17:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)]
- Staszek Lem, lol, have you heard of AGF? :) Yes, I had searched for books, and I thought that perhaps you actually knew of some I hadn't found on my google search, and I was asking in complete good faith if you could point me at any, as I'm willing to fix the article if it can be fixed. I've done that before, multiple times. —valereee (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- OK. Miscommunication, sorry. Please use books.google.com for search, and the bunch of books will be right on top, starting with this one. talk)
- OK. Miscommunication, sorry. Please use books.google.com for search, and the bunch of books will be right on top, starting with this one.
- Staszek Lem, lol, have you heard of AGF? :) Yes, I had searched for books, and I thought that perhaps you actually knew of some I hadn't found on my google search, and I was asking in complete good faith if you could point me at any, as I'm willing to fix the article if it can be fixed. I've done that before, multiple times. —valereee (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- Have you heard about due diligence? Aslo, that AfD is not a cleanup?
- Staszek Lem, none of the sources seem to be books? They're all primary documents, aren't they? —valereee (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
- comment in the meantime I've removed a deprecated source that had been used for much of the article and tagged the relevant assertions for citations needed. Tagged much of the rest for better citations needed, as most of the rest of the sources seem to be primary documents but at least aren't deprecated sources. —valereee (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2020 (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.