Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/False Memory Syndrome Foundation

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. Clear consensus. We do not delete articles because they're difficult to keep neutral--we instead work hard to make sure they do keep neutral. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False Memory Syndrome Foundation

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

After reading the talk page over, it seems to me that there are too many problems with this page. If this is not chosen to be deleted, I think that somebody needs to take the initiative to completely re-write the article. It seems that User:Pamfreyd is indeed Pamela Freyd, and wrote the original article herself. She was warned on her talk page and also in this article's talk page (as she is the FMSF's Executive Director, a glaring NPOV issue)

Because the subject is controversial, I believe that using the current article as the basis for future improvement could be an extremely slow process, as the article's talk page clearly shows that editors are having a difficult time even agreeing on whether or not this is a legitimate organization; just as many debate whether or not sources cited are good sources.

NPOV issues have been raised multiple times, and I believe that if this organization is notable enough to merit a wikipedia article, then somebody who is NOT involved with the organization will create a new article and ensure that it is NPOV from the beginning. I think that this will lead to a much better quality of article, with more neutrality and better sources.

I will be very very pleased to read the debate on this, please chip in with your thoughts!! /-\urelius ♠ |)ecimus _What's^{up, dog?} 03:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I agree with the nominator that this article needs a complete rewrite, AfD is not for cleanup. - Jorgath (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is the matter at issue here, not the current state of the article. And on that sole issue, the Google Books search immediately turns up lines such as "One of the fascinating stories of the 1990s was the emergence of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation" ("Human Behavior in the Social Environment"), "The False Memory Syndrome Foundation has had a substantial impact on the field" ("The link between childhood trauma and mental illness"), "the False Memory Syndrome Foundation which attracted international attention" ("New feminist stories of child sexual abuse") etc. So the organisation is clearly notable; which leaves the question of the article's improvement to normal editing. AllyD (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of notability. Not a perfect article, but FMSF would have been mentioned in most significant articles and books written – both pro and con – since the early days of the recovered/repressed/false memory controversy. MatthewTStone (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No member or board member of the FMSF has ever published an article in a referred journal in their OWN academic field documenting the existence of FMS.

Sturunner (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Organization is clearly notable. The claim made by Sturunner above is not only irrelevant to whether the article should stay but outright nonsense. The nominator suggests the article needs a total rewrite since the original author was someone in the group, but I can vouge for the fact that it has been edited and looked over many times since then by editors of various beliefs, and if I, for one, had determined any COI problems I would have deleted or rewritten them. Nominator doesn't really prove anything is wrong with it, just wants it deleted on the claim it must have something wrong with it. DreamGuy (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No argument has been presented that would justify deletion, even if found to be based on fact. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2012 (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.