Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie sarkis

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Sarkis[edit]

Though this page is fairly well sourced, the author of the page is User:Sarkis26 which leads me to believe this is an auto-biographical entry. This violates WP:COI and to me, makes this encyclopedia entry an exercise in self promotion. Liberal Classic (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, I don't think it actually establishes notability or meets the notability criteria for authors. Having written a couple of books isn't really enough to justify inclusion. Google turns up a lot of self-promotion from Sarkis but not much genuine third party interest in the subject. NZ forever (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on notability grounds. However, I'm concerned that the preceding comments are uncharitable and fail to assume good faith.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is this page any different from Lara Honos-Webb and Jeffrey Brantley, also authors at New Harbinger? - Sarkis26 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarkis26 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO sets the standard for notability. I don't see that either Lara Webb or Jeffrey Brantley are particularly notable. Having written a book or journal articles does not make one notable. Notability is established when others write substantial things about you. Liberal Classic (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This line of argument boils down to WP:OCE, and the admin who closes this debate will deal with it accordingly. To keep the article you need to show Stephanie Sarkis is notable by means of references in reputable, independent sources.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 04:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The subject received a somewhat-notable award from the APA, but has little other claim to notability.Quantumobserver (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP:PROF, "honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1." While the APA is a notable organization, the honor [1] does not meet the criteria for a major prize. W While assuming good faith, the submission does seem to have a promotional quality as the creator's edits are the creation of and edits to this article, edits the article on the publishing house for Sarkis' book, (see WP:COI) and comment here. While Sarkis does not meet the criteria for academics, the only criteria for notability that seems to be plausible at this point in Sarkis' career is as an author - which is it not clear that beyond book promotions that independent sources establish she meets notability criteria as an author. It is not shown that her books meet the criteria for notability. I've formatted the article's references so that it is easier to see the sources. — ERcheck (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on the creator's talk page on notability, references, and COI concerns. Continued edits increase COI concerns. I've left a further note on the editor's talk page as well as on the article talk page. — ERcheck (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:COI editing is not grounds for deletion. If the subject is non-notable that is another issue. LinguistAtLarge 20:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete gnews turns up 2 articles, however she's being quoted [2]not reported on and I don't feel they come anywhere near passing significant coverage. Everything through normal search [3] looks to be self promotion. No serious proof she passes any of the notability standards yet.Horrorshowj (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for the moment. The article was nominated for AfD a full 26 minutes after creation. No apparent effort to address any issues in the article, no communication with its author. Please, this is getting tiresome: COI is NOT a reason to take an article to AfD, it is NOT a reason for deletion. Obviously, COI is a reason to clean up an article. This nomination is therefore incomplete, as the nom is not giving any valid reasons why this should be deleted. Are the works from this person cited in the professional (academic) literature? Are there reviews of her books published in reliable sources? What does Google Scholar say? If this doesn't meet WP:BIO, does it perhaps meet WP:ACADEMIC? --Crusio (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this let me say I mean no disrespect to Dr. Sarkis and I apologize to the wikipedia community if I have done anything wrong. I just found it fraught with problems. It is difficult to assume good faith knowing the article was biographical. Are her awards and publications notable? Can an autobiography have a neutral point of view? If it is all POV, does it need to be gutted and rewritten? That's why I nominated it for deletion. I have no vested interest in the article being kept or deleted, and will abide by consensus. How should I handle this differently in the future? Liberal Classic (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal, sorry if I sounded a bit harsh, but I was losing my patience a bit at the umpteenth AfD stating COI as a deletion reason. In the case of the Sardis article, there are some claims of notability so you correctly decided not to go for speedy. Given that the article creator is probably the subject, prod would not be helpful either (although it might have been used to alert the editor to possible issues with COI and notability; tagging for those issues would have been another possible alternative). So your decision to go for AfD was not necessarily wrong, even if it was very rapid (in the end, I came down on the delete side). But given the possibility of notability, I would have liked to see more evidence of the lack thereof in the nom (such as Ghits, GNews, GScholar) and/or some attempt to communicate with the editor of the article to see whether additional sources possibly establishing notability exist. Although the majority of autobiographies indeed are on non-notable persons/bands/etc, some turn out to be on notable scientists (see for example Glenn McGee or Richard Tol or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Chater), although it is often necessary that others edit the articles for COI and POV issues. As for good faith, often newbies are unaware of the fact that WP strongly discourages (but not forbids) the creation of an autobio, so I would still WP:AGF in those cases, at least initially. --Crusio (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick Google Scholar search suggests her work has not been highly cited by academics.[4] However, she appears to be notable as an author; her 2006 book 10 Simple Solutions to Adult ADD: How to Overcome Chronic Distraction & Accomplish Your Goals is ranked 7,265 at Amazon.com and has a top hundred ranking in their "family health" category;[5] it has been reviewed (as referenced in the article) in several places independent of the author/publisher. Also as referenced in the article, she has been quoted as an expert on ADD in the media, eg [6]. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The use of amazon ranks is not a legitimate measure, except for comparison with other books with the same publication history and audience , etc. One popular book on ADD is not notability in any reasonable way. DGG (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not because of COI, but as non-notable, for the reasons cited by DGG and ChildofMidnight. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails to meet notability guidelines.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. The claim that her views on ADHD caused controversy lacks WP:V, unless we are talking about very minor controversy. The book 10 simple solutions to adult ADD is in 265 libraries worldwide; I would expect more holdings for a keep recommendation.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2009 (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.