Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerda Boyesen

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. KaisaL (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Boyesen[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)

Practitioner of what looks like fringe science psychology. Notability per WP:BIO not apparent. Essentially unsourced (WP:V). The two references are about her teachings, not herself. Created by Meco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation according to their talk page, and indef-blocked by ArbCom since 2013. Sandstein 18:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 18:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 18:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable quack. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Roxy the dog, notable based on which sources? Sandstein 19:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. This is a poorly sourced, typo-littered page about a person lacking significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found two decentish sources in print, namely The Handbook of Body Psychotherapy and Somatic Psychology at Google Books & Body Psychotherapy: History, Concepts, and Methods at Google Books. The thing is I'm unsure if they're enough to establish notability, and in any case I couldn't verify the authors' credibilities either. They could all be quacks, therefore giving weight to the delete argument! I agree the article is in terrible shape. PK650 (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. I simply struck my previous position above, but it seems that wasn't enough. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 02:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her work and the importance of her career has been cited and reviewed in multiple notable peer reviewed academic publications across multiple disciplines over several decades in non-trivial coverage. See:

Mackenzie, Vicki (Jan 8, 1978). Massage your cares away. p. 23. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
Bonenfant, Yvon (December 2007). Towards a politics of felt pulsation: De-disciplining voice and movement in the making of a musi-dance performance. Vol. 28. p. 39-58. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
Leijssen, Mia (April 2006). Validation of the Body in Psychotherapy. Vol. 46. p. 126-146. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
Hale, Sheila (Nov 17, 1985). Does the gut digest stress ?. p. 59. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
Cinque, Ralph C. (May–June 1996). Chiropractic: The Victim's Perspective. Vol. 13. p. 28(4). {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

These in conjunction with the sources found by PK650 are enough to meet WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 17:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree per 4meter4. Idolmm (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have a pass of WP:N thank you 4meter4 Lightburst (talk) 05:01, 9 March 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.