Deletion of Dressed to Kill (book)

Comment: The content of the book is irrelevant. The article shows sufficient sources to satisfy notability. If there is an issue with how the article is approached, that's a content issue and has nothing to do with AFD.  so the subject matter of the book, or its point of view, mean nothing with regards to its viability as an article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: The fact alone that the American Cancer Society has http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/content/MED_6_1x_Underwire_Bras.asp?sitearea=MED responded to this book's claims on their web site. The theories which are presented in the book are definitely y, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an article on the book. (We have :Category:Pseudoscience|plenty of articles on fringe-science topics. There's nothing wrong with them, so long as they present a balanced viewpoint of their topics
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Notable nonsense. Fulfills , in that mainstream sources have referenced (debunked) it (e.g. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fact-or-fiction-underwire-bras-cause-cancer Scientific American, the http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/content/MED_6_1x_Underwire_Bras.asp?sitearea=MED American Cancer Society). It saddens me that this ridiculousness has reached the level that it requires official debunking, but them's the facts. The article could use a good cleansing of poor content, crappy promotional sources affiliated with the subject, and perhaps even some agenda-driven editors, but the book is notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Wow that is some serious stupid. Mastcell more or less summarizes things well. DGG is not completely correct here because some of the sources are not in the business of debunking every little fringe idea. In particular, Scientific American does not generally do this. We have multiple reliable sources. The article should of course reflect  but that is not a reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: No matter how "wrong" or "incorrect" the book may be, there is no doubt that it has attracted widespread attention from independent, |reliable sources (including ''USA Today'' last week).  concerns can be dealt with by focusing on media reaction to the book; "POV bait" concerns can be addressed with due diligence (with the occasional |semiprotection should the editing heat rise). IP's points above are well-taken as there are other books with the title ''Dressed to Kill'' - '''move to complete name per IP and dabify this page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:UNDUE||WP:SEMI)