Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debra W. Soh


 * 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. Numerically, it's 15:6 in favor of keeping the article. Deletion discussions are not votes, but are closed according to whatever rough consensus emerges, with opinions weighted based on the strength of the arguments expressed, in the light of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This means that I need to determine whether there are any unusually compelling opinions in favor of deletion, or any weakly argued opinions against it. I don't think that this is the case here. The issue here is notability, as described at WP:GNG, which is essentially a function of a person's coverage in reliable sources. Most of the "delete" opinions do not address the sources that have been found to cover the subject, such as those provided in this discussion by herself, and one "delete" opinion has to be discounted for being just a personal attack on Debra Soh. This leads me to give less weight to the "delete" side and find that we have a consensus to keep the article.  Sandstein  09:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Debra W. Soh

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability TropicalFishes (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I do not think that this person meets the standards for Notability. I raised this point on the talk page two months ago and it has not been addressed. I believe that the point still holds - "On what grounds does Soh meet WP:JOURNALIST? I don't think a single interview and an off-hand mention in an article about a larger movement meets the criteria 'The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.'. Neither has she produced any significant new concepts, theories or techniques, or a well-known body of work." TropicalFishes (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * See below, I have changed my opinion to keep. TropicalFishes (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that Soh has attempted to influence the discussion by posting a link to this page from her twitter account. (https://twitter.com/DrDebraSoh/status/1059130716984885248). Also, I think it's worth pointing out an inaccuracy in her tweet. The discussion is not about whether she is a journalist (which she obviously is) or whether she is a scientist (she obviously used to be), but whether her work is sufficiently important to qualify for a Wikipedia article as set out in the guidelines for how notable a journalist must be to have their own Wikipedia article. TropicalFishes (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * She's published dozens of articles in such publications as the Globe and Mail, Quillette, and Playboy. Her interview with Dave Rubin has a total of 370K views. Her interview with Joe Rogan has 1.6 million views.  She hosts a podcast which has 40K listens on SoundCloud alone.  In what universe is she not notable? Signed - me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.72.202.220 (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Joe Rogan draws a large number of views regardless of who his guest is, since the Joe Rogan Experience is one of the most popular podcasts in the world. Her own podcast is much smaller in its audience, and has only received a small amount of media coverage. It also seems to only have 5 episodes. 135.23.140.125 (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No number of views or likes or streams any piece of content has on any social networking platform has anything whatsoever to do with Wikipedia's notability criteria. We count how many pieces of reliable source coverage about the person do or don't exist in real media, not how many people did or didn't view or listen to a podcast or a SoundCloud stream. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Soh is known for having contrarian views, grounded in science. She's one of a select group of legit, credentialed scientists who have studied Gender dysphoria in children and dared to publicly ask the question, "How young is too young to transition?"  To me, this makes her significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. Seandevelops (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This doesn't appear to be accurate. I can find no research that Dr. Soh has done that is related to gender dysphoria in children, though she has done research on a number of other topics (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Soh%20DW%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=26494360). Her work in journalism / science communication is unrelated to her research work. Many clinicians have expressed concerns about the age at which medical gender transition is appropriate. Ray Blanchard and Kenneth Zucker are two examples, who both meet WP:ACADEMIC because of their research contributions. Far from being a select group, their views were the norm in the field until fairly recently. TropicalFishes (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi TropicalFishes, I didn't mean to imply you would find original research on that topic by Debra Soh. But as a science journalist, I believe her contributions in that area (and others) could be considered to be unusual and notable.  She does not sidestep taboo topics.  #3 - Too Young To Transition?  My two cents, anyway.  Seandevelops (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In my experience of seeing her writings' influence in online forums, it seems to be that Soh is more than adequately notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Some indication of this is provided in this article in Psychology Today. I would strongly oppose having this article deleted. Yahboo (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The guidelines for what makes a creative professional notable are unambiguous (WP:JOURNALIST). Her work being well-received in online forums does not provide evidence that she is regarded as an important figure. A single magazine interview doesn't provide evidence of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources". — Preceding unsigned comment added by TropicalFishes (talk • contribs) 01:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Unsure - She has also published 4 articles in Scientific American, plus articles in the LA Times, CBC News, the Independent (UK), etc, and been interviewed (or had interviews published) in other languages and countries (eg Brazil, Chile). She is cited by other journalists to some extent, but I'm not sure that she meets WP:JOURNALIST, yet. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. A journalist's notability is measured in terms of the extent to which she is the subject of reliable source coverage — but of the twelve footnotes here, six of them represent her speaking or writing about herself or other things; four more are glancing namechecks of her existence in articles whose primary subjects are not her; one is a primary source directory listing; and the last is her own LinkedIn. A journalist does not become notable by getting interviewed, or by getting cited by other journalists, or by being the bylined author of content about other things — she becomes notable by being the subject of reliable source coverage about her, written in the third person by somebody else, but exactly zero of the sources here represent any such thing. Bearcat (talk) 06:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * (Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:8100:49F4:1DFA:F76E:7F55:7890 (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article needs improvement to be sure, but Soh's notability, as per Bearcat's accurate description of it, has only grown in the past six months and can likely be expected to grow much more in the coming years. Maybe it wasn't created to the best of standards, but deleting the page entirely seems radically premature. Jg2904 (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think that she doesn't currently meet the standards for notability but might in the future, then it seems like the right response would be to remove the page until she unambiguously does meet the standards. The discussion can always be revisited if circumstances change. However, it doesn't seem like she currently qualifies as notable, given the criteria set by the site, which apply equally to everybody. TropicalFishes (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, TropicalFishes, and sorry for any confusion; I think the article does meet notability standards, even if it's hitherto not in the best condition. I believe the article needs improvements, not deletion, as per JFG's remarks.  Also, you have to tag me in your responses, otherwise I won't get notified about them. Jg2904 (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. She’s been written about in the New York Times and we’re arguing if she’s notable? Lol. This is genuinely embarrassing for Wikipedia. Try to make your grudges a bit less obvious next time. Fig (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * She has not "been written about in the New York Times". One New York Times article about other people glancingly mentions Debra Soh's name a single time in the process of not being about Debra Soh, which is not the same thing as notability-conferring coverage about her. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. She's regularly published in Canada's biggest national newspaper, as well as Playboy & Quillette. She's been written about repeatedly in the New York Times alone, her appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast has 1.6 million views. She is noted for defending James Damore & she's also a notable voice in the criticism on how transgenderism is studied in academia. It should be noted she's often been targeted for censorship (YouTube just banned an ad for one of her videos with We The Internet for example), this AfD might be part of such a campaign. --TheTruthiness (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Where she's published has no bearing on notability — the notability test is not passed by being the bylined author of content about other things, it's passed by being the written-about subject of content by other people. And it wouldn't matter if the podcast had eleventy squillion bazillion views, either — if the correct kind of sourcing to get her past WP:GNG is not present in the article, then no number of views or likes or streams on any piece of unreliable social networking content counts as "inherently" notable enough to exemot the correct kind of sourcing to get her past GNG from having to be present. It's also not our job to concern ourselves with whether an article subject perceives themselves as being "censored" or not — our job is to concern ourselves with whether the person is properly sourceable to the correct kind of coverage needed to make them notable, not with anybody's political agenda in either direction. Bearcat (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We've heard you. Please refrain from bludgeoning the discussion with further repeats of the same argument. — JFG talk 08:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. She is a widely published writer, research scientist, and public intellectual (of a sort). Many people view and refer to her work, and I personally searched for a Wikipedia article about her the first time I saw her name mentioned in an article. Aaron Muir Hamilton &#60;aaron@correspondwith.me&#62; (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * People do not get Wikipedia articles by being widely published, they get Wikipedia articles by having other people write about them. Yet the kind of sources it takes to make her notable have not been and are not being shown here at all — wonder why that is, could it be that they don't exist? Bearcat (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition to the media appearances and interviews listed by others, here are 10 links to coverage written by other journalists about me, of which I am the main subject. I'd be happy to provide more.
 * (1) The Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/paraphilias-sexual-fetishes-medical-issue-voyeurism-exhibitionism-fetishism-atypical-expert-name-a7594846.html
 * (2) The Federalist: https://thefederalist.com/2018/10/26/youtube-bans-dangerous-ad-video-critiquing-transgenderism/
 * (3) National Review: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/common-sense-part-ii-not-every-sex-researcher-thinks-young-kids-should-transition/
 * (4) Discover Magazine: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2014/11/26/peek-inside-furry-convention/#.W-DD_xNKiL8
 * (5) Esquire: https://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/sex/news/a52596/sex-in-brain/
 * (6) Cosmopolitan: https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/news/a56050/warning-signs-hell-be-dangerous-in-bed/
 * (7) Psychology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/standard-deviations/201709/sex-researcher-turned-journalist-challenges-sexual-dogmas
 * (8) The Daily Wire: https://www.dailywire.com/news/13257/neuroscientist-yes-men-and-women-have-brain-aaron-bandler
 * (9) Politiken, Denmark's leading newspaper: https://politiken.dk/udland/art5861789/Derfor-har-Debra-Soh-vendt-feminismen-ryggen
 * (10) The Stranger: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/05/31/26879132/wrong-speak-is-a-safe-space-for-dangerous-ideas Debra Soh (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This actually convinces me that there's enough coverage to merit an article. Since most of the stories from mainstream sources (except Politiken / Discover / Psychology Today) are quoting you rather than directly about you, they were difficult to turn up with a google search of your name. This list will be valuable in helping to improve the article - thanks for taking the time to compile it. TropicalFishes (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The arguments that she is not yet sufficiently "notable" seem rather petty and ignorant. She seems to be already adequately notable for there to be a Wikipedia article about her. Yahboo (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Soh is primarily known for her opinion pieces in various publications, and is not widely cited by other authors. She has been mentioned briefly in a number of articles, but nothing that would suggest she is any more notable than many other journalists who do not have their own Wikipedia articles. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but neither the references given in the article nor any other sources I could find support the case for her being notable. Hpesoj00 (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep – While a lot of the article's sources are indeed citing the subject's own writings, which do not qualify her for notability, her coverage in The New York Times by itself passes WP:GNG. A case could also be made that her work has attracted "significant critical attention", per criterion 4(c) of WP:AUTHOR, or that she is "regarded as an important figure" per criterion 1 (although it is debatable who regards her as important). I hate to delve into WP:OTHERSTUFF, but we have hundreds if not thousands of articles about less-notable journalists, academics and scientists. — JFG talk 09:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If that case could be made, people should provide evidence for it by adding reliable sources to the article. As it stands, I disagree that the NYT coverage suffices to meet WP:GNG, because both are passing mentions to her or her work. In neither case is she the focus of the article. TropicalFishes (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - This appears to be a rather childish attempt by two individuals to remove a page by a known and frequently published author, journalist, and neuroscientist. Wikipedia users rely us to provide accurate information, without injecting our biases or personal points of view. The article clearly needs further editing, but that's no reason to delete it. I agree with JFG. Keep. — Omegabyte7 talk 09:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - A well known neuroscientist, who is also a journalist and writer. Passes WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Searching turns up numerous reliable sources. Netherzone (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not particularly well-known as a neuroscientist more than the average neuroscience grad with a PhD and has a verified Twitter account. This does not make someone notable just by the virtue of her following and her verified status. --Parkbenchmonster (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Straw man. No one is arguing that she would pass N as a neuroscience researcher.  The argument is that she earned the doctorate, then segued into a notable writing career, as Edward Rothstein, Charles Krauthammer and many ohters have done.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Many of the reasons for deletion have already been outlined above, but it is worth noting that even within her opinion pieces, that she claims is scientifically valid, she uses evidence that is either put in the wrong context or has been repeatedly debunked. She has a large following as a contrarian, transphobic writer, but this does not make her notable than the next reactionary grifter. Controversy is not a measure of notability. --DiasporaCryptid (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi DiasporaCryptid, a closer look and an open mind will reveal to you that Soh argues in good faith, and most certainly is not transphobic. I say this as someone who is politically liberal (if that grants me any extra credibility ). Thanks. Seandevelops (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you think her arguments are good doesn't affect whether or not she is notable. Plenty of people who might be labeled 'transphobic' meet the guidelines for notability, and so they have articles. However, I agree with you that contrarian views (without significant coverage in reliable secondary sources) are not a stand-in for notability. TropicalFishes (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors don't get to decide whether something is factually correct or not. Secondary sources do and wiki articles present them in unbiased manner. Its astonishing that this has to be said, its basic rule and I would recommend anyone who isn't aware of it to take time off their day and re-read them. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Science journalist, sexologist, neuroscientist. Published in Globe and Mail, Playboy, Scientific American, at least a dozen others.  Appearances on several major podcasts: Joe Rogan Experience, Rubin Report, Savage Lovecast, Hidden Brain.  Cited in New York Times articles by David Brooks and Bari Weiss.  The article by Weiss alone should pass WP:GNG.  Note how the guideline defines "significant coverage" and compare with how Weiss covered Soh.  Soh is an influential thinker, an influential writer, and in contrast to above, surprisingly more notable than the "average neuroscience grad with a PhD and verified Twitter account".  Keep. Seandevelops (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG defines "significant coverage" as, "addresses the topic directly and in detail", and, "more than a trivial mention". I would probably consider the mention of her in the NYT article (one short paragraph describing her as one of two "other figures" associated with the IDW) to be trivial, and I certainly wouldn't say it covered her in detail. Most other mentions of her in the media are even more trivial, and are usually quotes taken from her opinion pieces which, again, I wouldn't say qualify her as "widely cited", in support of WP:AUTHOR. Hpesoj00 (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep reading below that first paragraph, you'll find a couple more. While not the main topic of the source material [and doesn't need to be], I'd say the coverage is non-trivial with respect to the topic at hand.  The coverage is quite clearly something in between Bill Clinton and Robert Sobel in WP:GNG-speak. Seandevelops (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Published author, sourced wiki article. I can't understand why someone would nominate this for deletion. While No-Gatekeeping isn't Wikipedia official rule, it goes without saying that this shouldn't be tool for any editor. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:SIGCOV. And I do think it meaningful that she has been getting hundreds of hits ever day for for a long while - page is reliably sourced and useful to readers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: coverage in The Independent and an interview in [[Psychology Today] seem to cover notability. Pam  D  12:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep – Seems to pass WP:SIGCOV. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs)  14:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - not enough for notability.  Volunteer Marek   14:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * SIGCOV of her podcast Wrongspeak here:  Wrongspeak Is a Safe Space for Dangerous Ideas.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per Bearcat's reasoning. Rab V (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I see 4 interviews (Quillette, Joe Rogan, Psych Today, some Brazilian site), and a bunch of mentions in various large media. Soh herself provided a list of these above (>=10). Also, contrary to stated above, Politiken is a mainstream media, large general purpose Danish newspaper with center-left leanings. Deleet (talk) 08:22, 11 November 2018 (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.