Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Whitney


 * 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   no consensus. Cirt (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Diana Whitney

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not notable. Doesn't meet BIO. No Reliable independant source. Not verifiable. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  12:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral. The subject looks at first sight as thought she ought to be notable; Google Scholar finds 347 citations for her co-written book Appreciative Inquiry, and another co-written book is in over 300 WorldCat libraries. But the Google Scholar results for her name seem to be only citations and acknowledgements, and I can't find any significant news coverage in Google News Archive or LexisNexis. Perhaps someone more familiar with the field will know a better place to look for sources? EALacey (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of notability - fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I'm going to add in some awards and some additional independent references. I haven't ever created an article - so it is a learning process on my behalf. I have access to the awards, and articles are forthcoming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KamiKG (talk • contribs) 16:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep on basis of WP:Prof #1 and the comments below of DGG. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete without prejudice as clearcut spam. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Top GS cites seem to be 352, 240, 213, 183, 164.... h index = 17. Looks like a clear pass of WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC).


 * Delete limited credible third-party sources Vartanza (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of third party sources, one thousand of them on Google Scholar. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Which of those thousand are about her? 160.39.213.222 (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca  talk 14:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep WP:PROF is an alternative to WP:BLP, and it is enough to meet one of them. There appears to be some information to show that the candidate might meet WP:PROF, as an authority on her subject. The proof would the number of times she is quoted and acknowledged. because that is how the academic world expresses its views of notability. However, most of   her books are   not in a significant number of academic   libraries. Some of the Google Scholar results are for what I assume is another person, who writes romance novels. Many of the cites to our subject are essentially self-citations from her and her associates, but perhaps half of them are genuine, and does show a certain amount of influence.   The awards are remarkably minor; the academic position listed are not regular faculty. She might more realistically be considered to meet WP:AUTHOR; this would require 3rd party reviews of the books, which I have not yet looked for systematically, though there appear to be a few in Google News Archive.   So a weak keep only, because almost all the publications are either self-published or published by organizations closely affiliated with her; the 2 exceptions are the only one with substantial library holdings  by a regular publisher, Crown, and she has a book in press with McGraw Hill. Essentially all of them are by multiple authors, and she is not usually the first--they seem to be written by a team; furthermore, the titles and the absence of holdings in major libraries for most of them give the distinct impression that they are mostly variants of each other.    The article needed  major rewriting, and I have done so, eliminating the repetitive and the trivial. I apologize for not getting here sooner, but I was dealing with the current emergency on BLP deletions.     DGG ( talk ) 15:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note When I came to close this discussion it's kind of hovering on the borderline between no-consensus and consensus to delete. Hence, I've relisted it - a few additional viewpoints on whether the improvements by clarify the person's notability would be useful. ~  mazca  talk 14:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable + interesting (Bgeelhoed (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)).
 * Delete per nom. I'm really not sure what Xxanthippe is on about, as this subject is clearly NOT notable.  JBsupreme (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at Google scholar at top of page. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC).
 * You've been asked once before, but I will ask again: Which of those links are specifically about her? JBsupreme (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You've been answered before, WP:PROF requires that the work be influential enough to show as an authority, and this is shown by citations. The references are to the importance of the work, and that';s the notability. Her bio details are not what would make her notable--it's what people do that make them notable.  DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This notion of notability is circular. The references are not to the "importance" of her work. They are citations to her work.  Under wp:n, citations are not enough for notability because they don't constitute significant coverage that can actually be used to construct an encyclopedia article. 160.39.213.222 (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Read WP:Prof Note 1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC).
 * No. 160.39.213.222 (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The eight-edit anon might be enlightened if he did. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Your resort to an ad hominem indicates, ironically, that this 8-edit anon has a better policy argument than you. 160.39.213.222 (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The citations and reviews of her works, according to gscholar, leading works in the field of "appreciative inquiry", are enough for a keep.John Z (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep over remarks from . Regards,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 21:47, 2 February 2010 (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.