Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Gidley


 * 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.  Sandstein  12:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Jennifer Gidley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability completely unestablished. No non-primary sources. Flagged since 2010 without improvement. PROD removed with assertion of possible notability, but without repair of problems. For a BLP to be kept, we absolutely need the verifiable third-party reliable sources. I see no news coverage beyond a single letter to the editor, and nothing at all that constitutes a third-party source of biographical information on the subject - David Gerard (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Can't really sum it up better than the nom did. MSJapan (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article was created in 2009 so is not subject to newer BLP requirements. We're not debating the quality of the article here, the article can be improved. Slow progress, also not a valid reason to delete (WP:NODEADLINE). We should be focused on the notability of the subject. Her work has been cited over 1000 times so I think it is clear that she is influential in her field and therefore meets WP:NACADEMIC. ~Kvng (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're still talking hypotheticals that there's been no evidence presented for. Getting citations is not sufficient to pass WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMICS (indeed Notability_(academics) warns specifically against glib measures of citation such as Google Scholar) - which guideline were you thinking of that it is in fact relevant to? This article presently doesn't pass general notability, let alone BLP notability. You're just claiming she could be notable some time in the future - there's been six years to come up with anything, and in that time there's been nothing. If you have the evidence, please add it to the article - David Gerard (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Proposing deletion because you want other editors to improve articles is not good form. AfD is not for cleanup. I don't think have made a good case for deletion. WP:NACADEMIC does not require news coverage and thank god for that because we don't want WP to be People magazine. ~Kvng (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm proposing it for deletion because there's no evidence, in six years, that it can be cleaned up. If these sources exist, bring them, don't just talk about how they should hypothetically exist - David Gerard (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. GS h-index of 19 is a bit below par for the well-cited field of pop-psychology. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete as there's still nothing outstandingly convincing for the motivatingly noticeable independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  02:47, 7 July 2016 (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.