Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Segal

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. SilkTork *^YES! 00:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Segal[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. No reliable google hits, no some minor google books results, no indication of notability. Sole source on the page is an autobiographical book written by the subject of the article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added some sources found in some psychology books. I wonder if perhaps someone can find studies of the subject in academic journals. --CutOffTies (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even with the sources added by User:CutOffTies, there isn't any assertion of the greater importance of this particular case. I'm open to having my mind changed if anybody can find up with something. Kansan (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are a couple more sources where she's mentioned on her google books listing. In one of the sources, Deepak Chopra apparently mentions her in his footnotes. I don't really understand the subject matter enough to incorporate the sources.. nor is it clear to me whether the coverage of her in the books establishes enough notability one way or the other--CutOffTies (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The part that is interesting is that effects of a brain tumor were thought to be a mystical experience or psychological disorder. Sad that her physician husband or the psychologists and psychiatrists she saw missed this; if they had thought to send her for an MRI, she might still be alive. That aside, she is not notable other than for her book - it is a non-notable book, imo, except for its unwitting description of the effects of her brain tumor. Perhaps a footnote to a description of her book belongs under Brain_tumor#Signs_and_symptoms but otherwise, I think the bio on her should be deleted. -KeptSouth (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment - if she were living it seems like it would be a WP:BLP1E sort of thing. For me it comes down to "something weird happened, it was neat, she wrote a book, then died of a brain tumor". I don't know if bare mentions in other books are enough to pass WP:N, they're not for me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if the current wording was taken as some assertion of notability, there's no there there, much less no sense of self. There's no independent sources at all. It also fails WP:V and WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2011 (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.