Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Taylor (author)

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 that the subject meets notability standards. Per the discussion herein, I am adding the {{Cleanup AfD}} template to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Taylor (author)

[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)

This article does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for no original research and does not meet WP:BIO Additionally, the content is advertising for self-published material and non-reviewed research. Secondary sources are not verifiable and express the author's opinions (interviews). Statements on secondary sources are not verified by newspapers. The article is not neutral. It advocates for the author's viewpoint and includes personal opinions. Doesn’t meet additional WP:BIO criteria for academics and victims of crime. Other editors have pointed out problems with guidelines, view history and discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliciaesf (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Sexuality and gender, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TNT, Keep seems an option. I found this [1], Independent which is a reliable source, most are from tabloids. There are some in the article we can use, but wow, this is a mess. Might fall under AUTHOR, one review here [2], there in the Irish Examiner [3], and the Guardian [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of independent sources about her as well as the book she is essentially famous for. One thing, though: some of the sources refer to her as "Jessica Eaton". I'm pretty sure it's her because of the photos. The article doesn't explain this and it is confusing. I looked at other sources and I'm still quite confused. Can anyone clear that up? Also, I'd call her (psychologist) or something rather than author. Being an author is a sideline, AFAIK. As for policy, I'd opt for GNG. Lamona (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not keep Her books are badly researched and perpetuate naratives that can not be proved. Basically copy/pasta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:CE8:127:1EC9:412C:BE50:D40D:18B4 (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Properly sourced criticism, if added to the article, would only bolster notability. Unsourced negative opinions on a WP:BLP have no place on Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject of this article clearly meets WP:GNG based on the sourcing. That the article may need cleaning up is not a reason for deletion, WP:NOTCLEANUP, however the name issue should be resolved. Netherzone (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Has enough reliable coverage and articles about her. Skynxnex (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2022 (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.