Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Firestone
- 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. MBisanz talk 11:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Lisa Firestone[edit]
- Lisa Firestone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability per relevant guideline (WP:BIO). The subject does not appear to have received significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources. It's worth noting that she has indeed written for The Huffington Post; however, being published is not a critierion for getting a Wikipedia page. -- Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. No independent sources to support [[WP:GNG}}. GS cites not yet adequate for WP:Prof. Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC).
- Keep. I think she passes WP:PROF#C7. Even filtering out any mentions of her Huffington Post column, GNews still gives[1] 410 hits. Some are false positives, but most appear to be mainstream media sources quoting her opinions as an academic experts on psychology and psychotherapy. A number of independent from her sources have profile pages for her, including one at Dr Phil, [2], as well as more detailed ones, like here [3]. I think this is the kind of a situation that WP:PROF#C7 was meant for. Also, she co-wrote several reasonably successful books, whose mention the nominator somewhat overzealously removed from the article (There is no problem with including a selected bibliography - this practice is completely standard for WP articles about authors and academics). I haven't checked what's what there, but GBooks search for her name does give 1180 hits. Nsk92 (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- I have a couple of concerns about this line of reasoning:
- The standard you're talking about, WP:PROF, only applies to academics, which means people engaged in scholarly research or higher education. I see no evidence Firestone falls into this category. The article says she was a former adjunct faculty member at UC Santa Barbara, but this in fact was not the case; rather, she was merely a designated "Outside Supervisor."
- The "academic" issue aside, for the quotations prong of WP:PROF#C7 to apply, the subject has to be quoted in popular media more than a handful of times. I don't think Firestone rises to this level. 410 hits in Google News, or 1180 hits in Google Books is meaningless. You have to actually look at those hits. Most of them are the articles she's written in the Huffington Post. A huge number of the remainder of them all come from the same outlet, Bustle. The remaining hits are a smattering of unreliable sources (ex), non-independent sources (ex), references to other people with the same name (ex, and yes, a handful of reliable, popular sources (ex.
- --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- About being an academic: one does not have to hold an academic appointment at a college or university to be considered an academic. One just needs to be substantially engaged in recognized scholarly research. She has a substantial number of articles published in scholarly journals, as evidenced by GScholar record, as well as several published books. She has an award from an academic society. She regularly speaks at academic conferences and seminars, often as a plenary speaker, e.g. [4],[5],[6], [7],[8], [9], etc. That's enough to consider her an academic. Regarding your second point, even filtering out all the GNews hits related to Huffington Post and Bustle, there are certainly more than a handful that come from other independent reliable sources. Here is a sample: [10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16][17][18][19][20][21][22],[23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. Nsk92 (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- She certainly qualifies as an academic, but a GS h-index of 9 is not enough to pass WP:Prof#C1. As I said, WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC).
- I am not arguing for WP:Prof#C1 (I agree that she probably does not pass that criterion -- although one would have to check the situation with the reviews for her books, to make sure), but I am arguing for WP:Prof#C7 instead. Nsk92 (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at the info from her own website (which I assume is correct - should be easy to check)[30]:"Dr. Firestone has been interviewed for O Magazine, Cosmopolitan, Men’s Health, PsychologyToday, and The Los Angeles Times among other national and local publications. She has produced educational films and participated in many TV andradio interviews, including NPR and Dr. Phil. Dr. Firestone is the senior editor at PsychAlive.org and a blogger on The Huffington Post and Psychology Today." Let's not underestimate the latter two items. Altogether, this does describe somebody with a fairly visible national media presence. Nsk92 (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- She certainly qualifies as an academic, but a GS h-index of 9 is not enough to pass WP:Prof#C1. As I said, WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC).
- About being an academic: one does not have to hold an academic appointment at a college or university to be considered an academic. One just needs to be substantially engaged in recognized scholarly research. She has a substantial number of articles published in scholarly journals, as evidenced by GScholar record, as well as several published books. She has an award from an academic society. She regularly speaks at academic conferences and seminars, often as a plenary speaker, e.g. [4],[5],[6], [7],[8], [9], etc. That's enough to consider her an academic. Regarding your second point, even filtering out all the GNews hits related to Huffington Post and Bustle, there are certainly more than a handful that come from other independent reliable sources. Here is a sample: [10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16][17][18][19][20][21][22],[23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. Nsk92 (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
- I have a couple of concerns about this line of reasoning:
- Delete as examining this still found nothing noticeably convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 02:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete a non-notable psychologist. Having a column with HuffPo does not make someone notable, nor do passing mentions in publications.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, Although she does get quoted by the press, hits produce merely stuff she has published by HuffPost and similar places. She appears to me to be a non-notable writer and clinician. Main claim is editing PsychAlive, but it is not at all clear that this online, pop psychology website is at all notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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.