Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skin Cancer: Recognition and Management

Skin Cancer: Recognition and Management

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

Fails WP:NBOOK: no third-party sources, no claims of significance. — kashmiri ^TALK 14:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This book looks quite influential. There are many third-party sources and the book is widely cited. It was reviewed in the American Family Physician, Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England, British Journal of Dermatology, and much more. It is worth reading what Larry Millikan, chairman of dermatology at Tulane University, wrote in JAMA. Aionyann (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So many claims and not a single link? Bad bad bad! — kashmiri ^TALK 21:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources include a book review in JAMA, and another in Clinical Cornerstone. I don't know anything about Clinical Cornerstone, but the JAMA review looks solid. --Mark viking (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (leaning keep) - In addition to the book reviews, ~~WP:BKCRIT #4 might apply~~. But it is a hard one to prove (and I found nothing). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but #4 as I read it is about, say, literary works that are given to students as a study subject; not about handbooks that help with studying the curriculum. — kashmiri ^TALK 09:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, actually you are right, I retract that. The relevant footnote says "This criterion does not include textbooks or reference books written specifically for study in educational programs, but only independent works deemed sufficiently significant to be the subject of study themselves, such as major works in philosophy, literature, or science". I thought "or science" meant all non-textbook scientific books were okay but I guess its target is rather things such as the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Clearly, the book itself is not (yet?) an object of study. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]