Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snyderman and Rothman (study) (2nd nomination)
There are several problematic claims in the description above. First, how is this article an "advocacy paper?" The paper was originally published in the (highly regarded) The American Psychologist|American Psychologist. I can't recall ever seeing an "advocacy paper" published in this journal. Second, is there a problem with a "book advocating a point of view?" Any book worth reading (or worth writing a Wikipedia article about) advocated a point of view. Third, the "article exists as a POV fork." From what article is this a POV fork? I have followed much of the discussions on the Talk page and can't recall that claim ever having been made. Please tell us what article (that existed before this article) is the other side of the fork. Fourth, what POV is this article advocating? (And why not simply fix the article itself?) Fifth, the study/book is obviously |notable: the necessary "multiple, non-trivial2 published works whose sources are independent of the book itself" are listed in the references to the article itself
— User:David, 12:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:BK (Wikipedia:Notability)