Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Andre

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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Andre[edit]

Another non-notable BLP that is really a coat rack for anti-psychiatry. Only a handful of hits on google news. On of the most popular year for hits would be 1994 [1] a total of 6 hits and not all about this person. Article is not covering the person, it's covering the persons comments about ECT. Ridernyc (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Linda Andre is best known for her comments about ECT. Her new book (2009) covers the hidden history of this particular medical procedure. How exactly are you doing your google news search? I got millions of hits when I googled her name.S. M. Sullivan (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you don't put quotes around the name you will gets hits for every time time the name Linda and Andre are used in the same article. The proper full name in quotes gets you this on Google [2] 10,700 hits mostly social networking sites for various people with same name. A search of Google News returns this a total of 92 hits over the past 20 years not all of them about subject of the article. A search of Google books returns this [3] 107 hits most of them about photography, some about the subject of the article, a few of these are simply thank you mentioning her name. It's easy to get millions of hits without using proper search syntax. For example "Linda Andre" +ECT cuts the hits down to 29 on Google books [4], as opposed to using no syntax and just Searching on Linda Andre which returns 2760 hits [5]. Ridernyc (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wow, a "handful" of hits on Gnews? I have a little bit of trouble assuming good faith with this nomination. To meet notability guidelines, generally an article subject only needs a couple of in-depth pieces covering them in reliable sources. I see well over a dozen sources from AP, the New York Times, and other sources where she has been quoted and covered, usually as director of "The Committee for Truth in Psychiatry". It's very difficult to claim that she isn't notable. I totally agree with the criticism of S. M. Sullivan's search techniques, but Ridernyc even you admit that there are quite a few hits that are about her. -- Atama ^chat 16:15, 26 June 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.