Talk:Susan Anderson (psychotherapist)

Notability
This person may not be notable as an academic, but there are plenty of references in the article to show that her books and ideas have been widely discussed in various books, magazines and journal articles. Doesn't this pass WP:GNG? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See comments below. I think there is more work to be done to establish notability. There are many self-help authors with higher profile books that have not been deemed as notable. If notability is based on the Abandonment recovery movement, this needs to be better established as being a substitutive movement. Wiki-psyc (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Citations do not verify the text
Many of the citations do not verify the text they are attributed too. It appears that editors over cited the article in response to notability concerns. This article needs fewer and better/more relevant citations. Getting rid of weak citations will strengthen article. Please do not remove banners. If you feel the deficiencies have been resolved, and do not have a clear consensus on the talk page, please contact an admin for an independent review. Wiki-psyc (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Abandonment recovery movement
Before adding back claims of founding the Abandonment recovery movement, please post academic information or other substantial references that such a movement exists on the talk page and reach consensus. The echoing this concept in other self-help books does not likely qualify as establishing a movement. Please site reputable sources. Please do not remove banners. If you feel the deficiencies have been resolved, and do not have a clear consensus on the talk page, please contact an admin for an independent review. Wiki-psyc (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits / notability concerns
I've dipped my toe in here, and rewritten education and career in prose format--perhaps the template at top can be removed. I've also removed eight quotes from the 'Ideas' section, with the rationale that the descriptions of these ideas, with several quotes already embedded, should be sufficient. My instinct is that a voluminous sampling of ideas may be appropriate for an article on a major scholar, but notability seems to have been an issue here until recently, so a briefer synopsis will do. 2601:188:0:ABE6:2CE7:9FE7:32F1:AC2A (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if notability isn't still an issue - the notability tag was removed by the article creator. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That was a very significant edit/reduction. While still keeping with the direction established here, I added back a few elements in the Ideas section. The five stages of grief is central to this authors work. I also added more "prose" to the Career section. Historically, this article has had a lot of involvement by parties close to the subject and this has resulted in a lot of editorializing and many inline references that were not related to the material at hand. Its a good example of how hard it is for people with close connections to a subject to remain impartial. I hope this article develops in a more straight forward fashion going forward. Wiki-psyc (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that the original text for the education and career was in prose format - before it was edited into bullet points by one of the editors intent on improving the article. I modeled my original text very closely on other well-accepted examples in Wikipedia, including much longer pages on popular authors who have no credentials supporting their work (and thus clearly also cannot be regarded as major scholars). I've also attempted to address the various issues raised, each time according to advice I received from people who claimed to be experts - including checking with them prior to removing the notability tag, on advice I was given that I'd addressed the issue.
 * I strongly object to the unfounded claim of a close connection to the subject and associated lack of impartiality - unless you regard having actually read her material as being a close connection. Of course, I cannot challenge or remove this unfounded "close connection" claim tag without again being accused of inappropriate removal of a tag - a very nice double-bind ensuring that Wiki-psycho's slander will remain. It's a signature lesson in the weaknesses of Wikipedia. Livingmegler (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Important Author
I am really tired of Wikipedia saying someone must be "notable" and then having problems with a self-help author. I have read this woman's books and they saved my life. What is notable to you is establishment people with money. This woman is an author. She has plenty of degrees. She is famous. Still you question her value. What is wrong with your people. This is all subjective and just for the record Susan is NOTABLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C401:70:F09C:D6C0:4DD1:824 (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Notability
It appears there's been doubt of this subject's notability for years. Notability on Wikipedia is not subjective, there are criteria. It's not a judgement of how good she is, how educated she is, or a comment on what she does. Simply if there is continued coverage in reliable secondary sources. I do not see her passing this bar. Ifnord (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)