Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerda Boyesen


 * 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. KaisaL (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Boyesen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Practitioner of what looks like fringe science psychology. Notability per WP:BIO not apparent. Essentially unsourced (WP:V). The two references are about her teachings, not herself. Created by, who has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation according to their talk page, and indef-blocked by ArbCom since 2013.  Sandstein  18:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.   Sandstein   18:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   Sandstein   18:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep notable quack. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , notable based on which sources?  Sandstein   19:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per WP:TNT. This is a poorly sourced, typo-littered page about a person lacking significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I found two decentish sources in print, namely & . The thing is I'm unsure if they're enough to establish notability, and in any case I couldn't verify the authors' credibilities either. They could all be quacks, therefore giving weight to the delete argument! I agree the article is in terrible shape. PK650 (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 01:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC) These in conjunction with the sources found by PK650 are enough to meet WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 17:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete per nom. I simply struck my previous position above, but it seems that wasn't enough. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 02:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Her work and the importance of her career has been cited and reviewed in multiple notable peer reviewed academic publications across multiple disciplines over several decades in non-trivial coverage. See:

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 21:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep agree per . Idolmm (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep We have a pass of WP:N thank you 4meter4 Lightburst (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.