Deletion of Psychiatric abuse

Comment: I first looked at this article to give a 3rd opinion. Two significant problems would seem to support the AfD. First, the article appears to be an |original compilation of disparate items, without sufficient reliable sources that tie these items together. Hence, doesn't this article represent a |synthesis of items that the author considers connected? I raised this question and, while there may be some better sourcing of discrete items, the overall article still has this rather fatal flaw. Second, the ''article title'' is not based on |neutral terminology drawn from reliable sources. Instead, the title seems slanted and more likely to draw an array of controversial allegations (i.e., anything that is called or seems to be an abuse, i.e., a quote farm) rather than a coherent analysis and critique of psychiatry. Having raised this problem, I do wonder, why hasn't the article title been verified from quality sources (pref. academic)? Perhaps the title "psychiatric abuse" is mainly notable a term-of-art in Scientology. If so, then the article might be restructured and revised as an explanation of Scientology or Citizens Commission on Human Rights|CCHR doctrine or the like. Would the author (Sullivan) consider adding this content to Scientology and psychiatry? Or as an article growing out of that Scientology context? Thanks for hearing me out
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:NPOV)

Comment: A laundry list of instances where people have come to harm while they were under psychiatric treatment. The opening sentence of the first paragraph says it all: "Since psychiatrists are medical doctors, they are, in principle, bound by the Hippocratic Oath, which states, 'never do harm to anyone.'" This is a pure anti-psychiatry diatribe. One cannot possibly compare situations in developing countries with the Western world in the 1950s; attempts to do so become  almost instantly. If kept, needs to be '''renamed''' to allegations of abuse of psychiatric patients and drastically NPOVed. Main editor keeps using {{tl|inuse}} to stop AFD; main editor also declares that he has an interest in dianetics/scientology
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: The article has taken several references (of which I've read through) and has come to its own conclusion.  This is |original research.  If we can get some references using the term "psychiatric abuse" and/or references talking about its actual prevalence, and not just a bunch of opinion and individual case study refs lets keep it.  Until then, its a delete from me
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: POV, OR,  repository of items, creating POV by association
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: This article fits the definition of an attack page . An attack page fits general criteria #10 of Criteria for speedy deletion 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attack page (WP:ATP||WP:SPEEDY)

Comment: Non-encyclopedic and inappropriately POV compilation of individually notable incidents. Are there notable instances of repression in which psychiatrists have been involved? Yes. Is there notable criticism of psychiatry as a field? Yes. Have some of the rogues' gallery of 20th century villains utilized the trappings of psychiatry? Yes. But this article selectively cherry-picks and mines a variety of disparate incidents (which, so far as I can tell, no particularly notable source has grouped as a whole) into an article which is a clear |POV fork. It is exactly analagous to the problems with Allegations of Israeli apartheid (or any of the "allegations of apartheid" articles"). Collecting a bunch of potentially notable quotes or incidents and compiling them into a POV-slanted essay is |original synthesis and an abuse of the encylopedic process. If the verdict is to keep this article on grounds that the incidents compiled are individually notable and someone somewhere has used the term "psychiatric abuse" in a notable context, then at the very least this article needs a '''complete rewrite''' and restraint of what appears to be a |single-purpose account with a |clear agenda |to push
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:SYN||WP:SPA||WP:SOAP||WP:BATTLE)

Comment: I've changed my view in the light of discussion. I think the article is unsalvageably 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: I was just reading the article's talk page and someone had said it is an example of .  I had forgotten about that one but of course it is.  At least in the current form
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAP)