Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyewitness identification
The question here is whether the topic is |notable. http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&tbo=p&q=%22eyewitness+identification%22&num=10#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&tbs=bks:1&q=%22eyewitness+identification%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=fc8aae4abccfd483 Hundreds of scholarly books and http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=%22eyewitness+identification%22&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=14&hl=en thousands of scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals about eyewitness testimony amply demonstrate that the subject has received "significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources." Rather than "delete and restart from scratch," try editing out anything which violates POV or which has |undue weight. This does not mean that the position that "eyewitness testimony is nearly always right" should receive equal space. The information in the article is generally in accord with a vast number of published academic studies of the past 30 years or longer, showing that eyewitness testimony is often wrong, and that witnesses can be adamant in their incorrect identification of an accused person
— User:Edison, 21:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:NPOV||WP:UNDUE (Wikipedia:Notability)