Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judith Boss
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. Unsourced BLP. If a neutral editor with no connection to the subject wants to write a sourced article then be my guest but this version isn't coming back. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Judith Boss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No claim of notability made. Article seems to be self-promotion by the page creator. Bazonka (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if articles remains unsourced at end of AfD, weak keep if it at least some sources are added. While there is one external link, this is basically an unsourced BLP, so if someone doesn't bother to source this I think we should get rid of it and someone could recreate it if they actually provided sources. I'm not inclined to do the sourcing myself because I don't think we really need this article, but if it were sourced I would be in the weak keep camp. Boss has written a number of books and journal articles in peer reviewed journals, the latter of which have received some citation attention. Some of her work has also received popular notice, for example an article she wrote discussing the possible deleterious effects of the Santa Claus myth--hope I didn't ruin anyone's day with that reveal!--on children (see here for example). Boss is of marginal notability, but I think we could craft a verifiable article which discusses her work. If that happens then keep it, but if it still looks like it does now after one week then definitely delete. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete independent third party sources are required. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:07, 11 August 2011 (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.