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

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Yes, I guess that simply being a compendium it is not really groundbreaking enough to be an object of studies. Compendia like this one are published regularly, every few years (sometimes several a year!) in every area of medicine, as a handy reference book for students and medical consultants. Not sure this one merits inclusion in Wikipedia on its own - but if so, I can easily add a few dozen others in other areas of medicine. PubMed will perhaps give tens of thousand results - there should be at least one reference book for the majority of ~7000 described disorders. Regards, — kashmiri ^TALK 11:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found three reviews on my school database and I included as much information about them as possible. The difficulty level here is that since this is a textbook, most of the coverage is in places that don't really come up easily in a search and what does come up is on databases that can only be accessed via a membership. I also see where the work seems to be routinely listed as an authoritative source in places like here and here. This article needs to be expanded by someone more familiar with the topic, otherwise I could easily see someone make the argument that this could just redirect to its author's article. However that said, this does seem like it'd be easy to flesh out if someone knew what the book contained. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the reviews are perhaps enough to keep for now and any additional familiar attention would also help I imagine. SwisterTwister talk

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.