Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darcy Sterling


 * 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. Keeper |  76  00:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Darcy Sterling

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Darcy Sterling has not been the subject of multiple third party press mentions. If you look through the citations lists, many are in Go Magazine, an unreliable source to which Darcy is a contributor. She has a direct relationship with the editorial staff. In fact, some of the sources are just articles that Darcy wrote in Go Magazine. Go is hardly an independent source. If her claim to fame is being a contributor to a small magazine, then Wikipedia should be filled with articles on thousands of freelance writers. I'm not opposed to the idea that Darcy will be notable one day, but right now she is not. Simply put, this article is promotional in nature, was created by a paid, COI editor, and should be deleted. CitizenNeutral (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment Additionally, in the edit history, the editor that created this article makes the case that Darcy should be compared to Dr. Phil. I find this to be a very strange comparison, as one is a national talk show host, and the other runs a small practice in NYC. CitizenNeutral (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Why are the magazines that have published Sterling's column "unreliable"? GO is a free lesbian magazine distributed in 25 US cities, and Psychology Today has a circulation of nearly 300,000, along with over 150,000 Twitter followers. Unless there's something I'm not aware of, I don't see why having your column published in a magazine means it is not an independent source. I created this entry and feel the subject's notability is sufficient, and that the entry is neutral in tone. I've revised it slightly, in an attempt to clear it of anything that could be construed as promotional.--Bernie44 (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 Delete no sufficient coverage by reliable independent sources to establish notability.--Staberinde (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 7.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  06:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * delete fails WP:CREATIVE. simply writing in notable publications does not make one notable. LibStar (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2013 (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.