Deletion of Brain-disabling psychiatric medical treatment

Comment: Hold it, folks. Before we accept an article about the book, the book has to be notable - and I could find no evidence that it meets .  A Google search finds only listings of the book for sale, and things written by Breggin himself. Google News Archive finds nothing about the book. Google Scholar says the book has been cited 165 times, but finds no reviews or other substantial coverage ABOUT the book. Bottom line, Breggin himself may be notable, but this book isn't - and thus it shouldn't have have an article. The content is adequately covered already at Peter Breggin
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBOOK)

Comment: in some form) I think there is useful information here beyond the more common side effects of some medications. Though the mainstream medical community may consider this FRINGE, clearly much is being said about these ideas both positive and negative. I think it is  and sources exist, as shown in the above comments. Currently the article is not balanced or neutral and probably contains OR. The fact that an article needs work is NOT a valid reason to delete per . The guidelines , ,and EGLECT advise that articles needing improvement and those not being edited currently should be kept if they contain valid information. WP has no deadline so the fact that no one has rushed off to start work is irrelevant to deletion. The fact that a SPA created it is also irrelevant in this case. It was not written as a promotional item and does not violate OT
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:DELETE||WP:PROBLEM||WP:UGLY||WP:NEGLECT||WP:NOT)

Comment: I don't think any of us arguing for deletion would dispute that there is notable material related to what is on the page. But I would also urge care with respect to arguments based on . Likewise, we should consider the last paragraph of : the fact of notability does not trump  and other policies and guidelines (here, particularly,  and ). Anything to be kept or merged really ''must'' satisfy  as well as eschew anything that misleads readers medically. The question is whether, if the page were to be deleted, anything would be lost with respect to creating proper content from scratch. In that regard, please let me suggest that those editors arguing for some sort of keep specify what, on the page, you would retain on a kept and renamed page. If there is a compelling argument for keeping a significant portion of the content, then that might change my mind, but if there isn't, it would be advisable to create better material from scratch
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:GHITS||WP:JNN||WP:NOT||WP:FRINGE||WP:MEDRS||WP:NPOV)

Comment: clearly. Classic example of an  or , and so POV that even the title is POV
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Essays (WP:ESSAY||WP:SYNTHESIS)