Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmy van Deurzen (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  18:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Emmy van Deurzen
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tagged as COI for eleven years. Perhaps, if no-one has cleaned it up in all that time, we should to admit no one cares enough to have this on Wikipedia? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - no independent, let alone reliable, sources either.--Rpclod (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete (weak) no independent source in 11 years fails WP:GNG. The assertion of notability as former chair of United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy is WP:NOTINHERITED from the UKCP. Needs checking against WP:NPROF / WP:AUTHOR / other, but we can't build an article (let alone a BLP) without a single secondary, independent source so this can't be left in limbo and Andy is right to nom. We wouldn't leave it in draft/AfC this long, so less acceptable in article space. The previous no consensus Articles for deletion/Emmy van Deurzen has Keep arguments based on 1. publications 2. "top of her field". NB notability is not the only grounds for deletion, WP:NOT promotion etc also allow deletion. No prejudice against a Keep !voter draftify/userify . Widefox ; talk 12:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)  Widefox ; talk 13:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment the time since a source was published is not relevant.104.163.148.25 (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks DGG, changed to Keep per convention. User:104.163.148.25 - if you're referring to the "11 years", that's from the nom "eleven years" - it doesn't refer to the year of sources, as once notability is established it does not go away - sources can be any age - it does not need continued notice. Widefox ; talk 20:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per number of citations of her work shown in Google Scholar, multiple (albeit brief) reviews of her books:, , , , plus keep arguments from first AfD. --Michig (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What do we do when a BLP fails GNG but passes NPROF etc? Widefox ; talk 13:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Trimming the article to verifiable information would be my choice. We have sources available such as this and likely university websites to verify positions held, and the existence of her books is easily verified. Much of the current content of the article may need to go if sources cannot be found to provide verification. --Michig (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That source is not independent, and uni websites listing staff ditto / primary. Is there a concern that less viewed areas of WP, but with COI editors act as COI magnets so a stub will fill up with NOTPROMO, or be WP:PERMASTUB? Widefox ; talk 13:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * delete per PROMO. This is not a Wikipedia article.  If somebody wants to write one that would be great. This hijacked page should not remain in mainspace. Jytdog (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Very very very weak keep I trimmed out all material that was uncited or self-referenced. The result is middling in terms of notability.104.163.148.25 (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. but edit the remaining namedropping and the minor awards promotionalism (which I have just done)  . ":What do we do when a BLP fails GNG but passes NPROF" ? We keep it, WP:PROF is an independent criterion from them GNG, adopted by wide consensus 10 years ago and never seriously challenged. It says exactly that on its face--just read it. We've kept tens of thousands of articles by WP:PROF   just on the evidence of their publications; and an official  CV is a satisfactory source for unchallenged biographical details.  DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks DGG for taking the time to explain. Widefox ; talk 20:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

If you are now "keep" and were the nominator, you should withdraw the nom and we should speedy keep. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. Pam  D  12:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep (as nominator) following heavy revision by the IP and others (for which, thank you). In the light of these edits, I have now removed the COI tag. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability is further established by the citation . Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ...and . Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Id notability can br established then the promotional text gets removed but the subject matter itself can stay as long as independent sources verify the content. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 21:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The other delete !votes prevent a speedy keep close per Speedy keep. --Michig (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Never saw an AfD where the nomnator switched to "Keep".  -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:33, 11 February 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.