Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Hendershott


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Anne Hendershott
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable academic. Pepper Beast   (talk)  22:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Multiple published book reviews (several already in the article at the time of nomination) give her a pass of WP:AUTHOR. The nomination statement is vacuous and provides no evidence that the nominator has attempted to check the notability of the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability clearly demonstrated by a search on Google scholar. Mccapra (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. A GS h-index of 10 is very low for the highly cited field of pop-psychology. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC).
 * I'm not at all convinced that's relevant. She comes across to me as more notable as a right-wing religious polemicist than as a pop-psych scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The reviews in the less politically-aligned publications would tend to support that conclusion . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: multiply-reviewed author. Pam  D  09:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as has reliable sources coverage already referenced in the article and worldcat shows 3200 library holdings which indicates there should be more coverage such as reviews offline if not online imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.