Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Libby

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. Strong consensus for deletion. Some do not believe the subject meets WP:GNG, others cautiously think he might, but cite some variant of WP:TNT. An apparent request from the article subject to delete wouldn't be enough to override a consensus to keep, but it is certainly enough to expedite the deletion process when consensus to delete is as clear as it is here, so closing a few days early. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)}} _{(script run by —SpacemanSpiff 19:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

Roger Libby[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no secondary sources — none — for this bio; all the references are to the subject's own publications. For the "Early life" section, there's not even that, it's simply unsourced. Looking at the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC, the subject needs to satisfy at least one of them, and to be shown by independent sources to satisfy them. No such sources have been provided in the three weeks since the "BLP sources" and "primary sources" tags were added to the article. On the contrary, the tags have been several times removed by a single purpose account, currently discussed on ANI with regard to possible COI, who protests that such tags are "damaging to the credibility of the doctor" and "deleterious to the patients of the doctor".[1]

(To go into a little more detail: the current note 13, the one reference which is not labelled as written by the subject himself, might mislead the unwary as it appears to cite a different author, Murray A. Strauss. But that's merely one of those academic formalities. Note 13 references a 1978 anthology containing an article by Libby; i. e., that too is a primary source. Or not a source exactly; it's a publication, an article. This is an entirely self-sourced bio, something Wikipedia doesn't do, because sources other than the subject are needed to attest notability.) Bishonen | talk 07:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 25 H-index 103.27.227.107 (talk) 09:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, what? This is not a vote. Please log in to your account and give a non-cryptic reason. Bishonen | talk 14:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

See h-index for context. Bosstopher (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. May be possible to create an actual WP article on this guy but I am not willing to put in the time. If someone ~~ones~~ wants to create an article following deletion, they can. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC) (fix typo Jytdog (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per Bishonen. I find her reasoning here and on the AN/I thread concerning the sourcing of the article quite persuasive. When combined with the obvious fact that Seattleditor (aka Screenwriter, aka Seatlle24x7) is a SEO/PR writer for hire, it's quite clear that this is a promotional article only, and that Libby has no national reputation to support an article at all. BMK (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can only find one mainstream RS about this person ([2]). The h-index value indicates a lifetime of research, but is not large enough to indicate a major impact on the field per the first criterion of WP:PROF. Appears to not meet other criteria of PROF. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And even that NYTimes reference is pretty darn weak - just a passing reference to his opinion as a "relationship therapist in Seattle". Hardly what we look for in establishing notability. BMK (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not established, and cannot be established by sources that are not independent of the subject. Johnuniq (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq: you mean are independent? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 13:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]
No, I don't think he does, EF. Count all the negations! Bishonen | talk 14:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Groan. It sounded alright in my head but I can't make much sense of it now. I might add some parentheses later. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I !vote delete per Jytdog and EGF. My initial reaction is to vote 'keep' and invoke WP:ARS. However, reading the arguments I'm compelled by Jytdog's argument, WP:TNT. Instead of citing ARS, I'm now forced to cite WP:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD.

There is one condition I have here that I'd prefer we could tidy up: Per Talk:Roger Libby#Reads like a CV, I'd really like to hear @Flyer22:'s opinion on this (per EGF).

I do have a belief, based on cited primary sources, that there is enough for an article here (there must be somewhere, out there, secondary sources we can cite, I believe). But Seattleditor has gone over the top, claiming the individual is "America's premiere sexologist". Why should we delete an article, because an SPA is full of bull excrement (we tend not to consider the SPA's opinion anyway)? Well, Jytdog answered the question, and so I !vote delete. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aladdin Sane, what I stated at Talk:Roger Libby#Reads like a CV is the extent of my opinion on this topic. Since that talk page will be deleted, I will repeat what I relayed there: "I wouldn't state he needs a Wikipedia article. And I don't see any WP:Notability regarding him. WP:Academic comes into play here." Flyer22 (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written and cited, does not pass WP:GNG or any relevant sub-guideline for notability. If there actually is significant coverage in independent reliable sources out there, I think it had better show up fast. Softlavender (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

just fyi - i received an email from a person saying he was Roger Libby. Not happy about the tags on the article and among other things wrote: "In (sic - meant "if" i believe) my many publications, academic and professional credentials and references (including the links to professional associations which are publicly accessible online) are not sufficient, I would ask you to immediately remove the page entirely as it calls into question my professional standing given your editorial staff's lack of certainty in my credentials. Under the circumstances, I consider the "public editing" of the page to be damaging to my professional sex therapy practice and my reputation. Frankly, it has me wondering what other options might exist for what I sincerely believe to be an act of defamation. It appears that on Wikipedia everyone is guilty until proven innocent." I'll also make a note of this on the ANI thread. Jytdog (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In light of @Jytdog:'s quote, can we move up the speed of this deletion process? I'm not comfortable with the defamation accusation, and it seems the article fails BLP policy in general, now. I just went over the criteria at WP:SPEEDY, and could not find a criterion for deleting on the basis of BLP violation, accusation of defamation.

It seems G7 does not apply, as many of us have seen that Dr. L. is not the author, instead Mr. S. wrote it.

I should like to point out, in response to the doctor's quote above, that WP did not create this situation, a "pompous and obtuse" marketroid (whether paid for this article or not), Mr. S., did. Some in the doctor's business have called this (an accusation directed at the wrong source) a form of "projection".

Since we started down this AfD road led by @Bishonen:, I'd hope she can get us to the end of it safely. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aladdin, I can't close the discussion early and delete the article myself, but I've put out an urgent call for an uninvolved admin on ANI.[3] Bishonen | talk 19:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet GNG criteria and the SPA involvement is worrying. We do not exist to validate or promote people. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- No sources or citations = no article. Cassianto ^Talk 18:53, 24 June 2015 (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.