Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Austin

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Austin[edit]

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

Not notable. The subject fails the general notability criterion, the only Google hit relating to her (not other Diane Austins) is a self-published source, no Google news hits, and noting in Google books. Now according to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) (highlighting relevant criterion): 1: Unable to find evidence of this; Google scholar turns up a few article co-written by Austin, with more being written by another "Diane Austin" 2: Not covered in article, would have showed up on Google 3: Same as above 8: Article says subject has been "instrumental in developing the field of vocal psychotherapy". If this field is still being developed, there wouldn't be any "major well-established journal"s Mm40 (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominator. Fails WP:GNG. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her work seems to have had little impact – fails WP:PROF #1. Cannot find any papers in WoS and a vanilla GS search only show results from a notable medical researcher in Wisconsin who coincidentally has the same name. WorldCat shows that her book is not widely held in libraries (only about 70). Google searches for claims on techniques she invented are similarly unimpressive. For example, free associative singing shows top hits that are either from this WP page or from the subject herself, implying there has been little to no "uptake" of this concept by the wider community. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability whatsoever. NBeale (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable minor academic Vartanza (talk) 07:03, 9 December 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.