Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Smith (psychologist)

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. Consensus is clear the subject meets at least WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Smith (psychologist)

[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)

Apparently promotional bio, flagged on the talk page for notability for many years. No evidence of notability under WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR or any other specific guideline. Article is entirely primary sources, and contains zero third-party RS coverage; going back through old versions in the history doesn't show any better cites. A WP:BEFORE doesn't show notability for the author nor either of her books. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, but it would have to be shown, with solid coverage in independent third-party RSes. David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. As nominator says, article is full of primary sources. LibStar (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or maybe move. I absolutely agree it's very promo, but that doesn't mean she isn't notable. She meets GNG. Independent Women's Forum are enormous fans of hers and keep using her as a scientific voice - [1] [2] [3] [4]. Mother Jones are not fans of hers - [5]. Wall Street Journal think she's on the right track but needs to learn how to make strong arguments - [6]. Daily Life - [7]. Most articles talking about her do also mention her book, which is why I gave "move" as an option. But I prefer to keep the article as Smith because the book is consistently discussed as though it's an extension of her voice, and some of the articles do also discuss her as a person or other things she's said. --Xurizuri (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as seems to meet WP:GNG, and WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would propose that the attention she receives from the IWF could satisfy WP:NACADEMIC. Many of the viewpoints they hold are objectionable and MRA-adjacent, but they seem to have a non-negligible presence among the center-right. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is not an academic, but there is plenty of coverage, provided above as well as more out there. scope_creep^Talk 16:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as she receives plenty of coverageJackattack1597 (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2021 (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.