Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Hairston

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 keep. (non-admin closure) - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 13:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Hairston[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Promotional and CV like. Hairston does not meet GNG, NPOL (Black Caucus in APA), or any of the criteria in scholar. The article itself has a number of false claims:

Hairston did not co-author Racism and Psychiatry: Contemporary Issues and Interventions in the conventional meaning, as it has four other individuals named as editors on the jacket. She is a co-author of chapters 1 and 7 (each of which has 5 different named co-authors).
The "Select media" section (which presents the media pieces as "featuring" Hairston) contains every single media reference of Hairston, which also includes non-media sources such as podcasts. The most extensive piece in actual media is in NPR, [1], and is all of four questions in the beginning of a six minute segment before NPR moves on to interview other people. The "feature" on Huffpost - [2] - is two embedded tweets. Other pieces have even less coverage, or in the case of this link none at all.
Additional media on Hairston, and particularly in-depth media, is lacking. This is not close to passing GNG.

Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 09:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete Case of Wp:Toosoon I think. I think we will see editors argue the case of wp:prof elected to major chair being president of Black caucus of APA but, this is a subdivision of APA so would not count. Agree with Eostrix on other points.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a hard time with the pages for physicians that are impactful in their medical communities, I figured her leadership within the APA and at Howard as the Director of Residency Program were honorable roles. I also thought that since she had been featured in so many news sources, it was significant coverage of her impact regarding her knowledge and expertise on the topics of racism and trauma and the effects on mental health. She is a leader in the advocacy and education on Racism and Trauma given her being one of the authors to write that book and the various news outlets that she is interviewed on regarding these topics. I am seeing that there are nuances to the notability criteria that I do not yet understand. Microglia145 (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that I am writing this in the correct space. But, I (Danielle Hairston), did co-author the book. There are quite a few authors, it's an extensive and long book. The names listed on the cover are the EDITORS. I am the lead author for one of the chapters.

I do impact the mental health community and it's disheartening to have my accomplishments minimized. I'll be featured on Lifetime tonight (6/29 at 8pm EST), as being highlighted as one of Variety's Power of Women Frontline heroes during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a repeat from the show that originally aired on 6/25.

Becoming a residency training director means something, and I am (I believe), the youngest Black, woman psychiatry residency training director in the country.

Publications:

Hairston, D. R., Gibbs, T. A., Wong, S. S., & Jordan, A. (2019). Clinician bias in diagnosis and treatment. In Racism and Psychiatry (pp. 105-137). Humana Press, Cham.
Hairston, D. R., de Similien, R. H., Himelhoch, S., & Forrester, A. (2019). Treatment of phantom shocks: A case report. The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 54(3), 181-187.
De Similien, R., Hairston, D. R., Kumari, S., Matthews, G. E., Wasser, T., Malik, M., & Manalai, P. (2018). Sociodemographic and clinical correlates of the frequently hospitalized African American patients with severe and persistent mental illness. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry.
Ralph de Similien, M. D., Lee, B. L., Hairston, D. R., & Sonje, S. (2019). Sick, or faking it?. Current Psychiatry, 18(9), 49.
Gordon-Achebe, K., Hairston, D. R., Miller, S., Legha, R., & Starks, S. (2019). Origins of Racism in American Medicine and Psychiatry. In Racism and Psychiatry (pp. 3-19). Humana Press, Cham.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.238.200.2 (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 138.238.200.2 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. per self-disclosed identity above and [3] [4].

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Contributions to scholarship by GS too tiny to pass WP:Prof: WP:Too soon. Maybe in ten years time. WP:GNG not passed yet either. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC),[reply]

KEEP She was recently honored on Lifetime and interviewed by Laverne Cox for the power of women series, honoring female physicians who have made a difference during the COVID-19 pandemic https://twitter.com/Variety/status/1276362853532921856?s=20. -Rdaneshjou — Rdaneshjou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Twitter is not considered to be a reliable source. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Twitter isn't the source—the Twitter account of Variety is. Wikipedia frequently uses tweets posted on social media accounts of otherwise reliable media outlets as references. For Variety in particular, their Twitter account is used as a source in: Cardi B, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, Hairspray (2007 film), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in film and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Variety the magazine, but rather a two minute segment on the Lifestyle cable channel in which Hairston has a very short interview segment in a feature covering multiple people.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 12:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is, in fact Variety the magazine. Variety is a reliable source which reported that Hairston was featured on Lifetime. pburka (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged not a vote due to [5] [6].--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 05:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Respectfully disagree with the assessment of other editors regarding notability, I see more than enough between the scholarship, awards, and media coverage. Gamaliel (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in VIAF, nothing substantial in Google Scholar, nothing in ORCID. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Closing admin please consider draftify'ing rather than deleting, since this is a good faith attempt to create an article about a subject who seems very likely to be notable soon. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added citations from Der Spiegel (the largest circulation magazine in Europe) and the Huffington Post.Lainx (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither cover Hairston in any depth. Huffington Post has two embedded tweets and a short paragraph with quotes. Der Spiegel has a couple of short quotes. This is a comprehensive SIGCOV fail, individuals do not become notable from around 10 short quotes in the media.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 12:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Hairston is a vocal advocate for physicians! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2d80:d586:3700:a9d7:1cf:fcab:d83e (talk • contribs) 12:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at references, she seems to pass (but not strongly) WP:GNG Ladsgroup^overleg 20:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Marginal on media coverage, but she does appear to have had a significant career, has held prominent positions within relevant professional organisations, is well known and respected in her field - sufficiently covered in relevant academia. She has had a notable career re scholarship and awards, coupled with the media coverage she has received I think she qualifies as notable. Bacondrum (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clear but inconsistent passing of WP:GNG and as I see it more citations are being added to the article to bolster its sourcing with WP:RS. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 14:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In spite of the canvassing, an NPR article, a good chunk of a Der Spiegel article, and a not-insignificant quote in Business Insider, along with some fairly substantial coverage in Slate, together seem to me to get past WP:GNG. I'm unconvinced by the usefulness of the HuffPost article, considering that it's only listing some of Hairston's Tweets and not offering any further commentary, but we have far worse articles on-wiki than ones with the other sources. AfD is not cleanup, and I'm unconvinced that WP:TNT is needed here.
138.238.200.2, thank you for all of the important work that you do. I think that the article about you meets our criteria, but it's important to understand that a Wikipedia article isn't necessarily a good thing, and article deletion definitely isn't the same as saying your work is wrong, or that it's not valuable. Those above who've expressed opinions in favour of deletion are doing so on the basis of our notability policy, but it's important to remember that "notable" isn't the same as "important", or even correlated. Your work is clearly important, the question here is only over whether it's sufficiently notable for Wikipedia - which I think it is. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; just squeaks by on the strength of the NPR, Der Spiegel, and Slate coverage, helped by the APA Black Caucus presidency. —valereee (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2020 (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.