Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Association Books

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free Association Books[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to have sources to support notability. I couldn't find a link to the prior AfD discussion on Talk, but it looks like it was previously deleted? CorporateM (Talk) 03:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In 2008 there was a Prod (rationale "Apparent COI creation, no sources given, none added in almost one year") so I don't think there was ever an AfD or deletion. An awkward one this, for me FA has been an influential publisher, both of its journal and books on psychoanalysis and related, but I recognise that evidencing notability is not going to be easy. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I've had a look for this publishing house among various resources, they don't seem particularly noticeable. ISBS says of them;

Free Association Books (UK) specializes in psychiatry and psychoanalysis; and one of their focuses within those fields
is child and adolescent studies. They also have a strong backlist. The press continues to make available, in English
translation, pertinent works in psychoanalysis. Cultural and sociological studies are growing fields for this press,
whether they are producing books on the culture surrounding drug use, or representing child sexual abuse in the media,
They also publish in gender studies, health and the intersection of technology and health, the last particularly through
books by Michel Odent, a noted obstetrician.

and I could find nothing further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs) 15:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: on the evidence of the quotation given in SPACKlick's remarks above. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged UK 13:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.