Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judith Rabinor (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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Judith Rabinor
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Very promotional article, about a not very important psychotherapist. I see it as so promotional -- trying so strongly to exaggerate the subject's claims to importance-- that it might meet G11, but it seems no other admin agreed for 24 hours, so it is better to send it here. She is a published author, so A7 does not apply.

I see no notability by either WP:PROF or WP:AUt/hOR or the GNG. The highest formal position she seems to have held is AssociateProfessor at a really minor university., tho the article tries to magnify its importance as "the oldest college on Long Island" She has been a consultant to some notable organizations,but that isn't by itself notability--consultant is an exceedingly general term.

She runs a clinic on eating disorders. Thee's no evidence of it being notable. She's appeared on numerous talk shows. We have never used that as an element of notability, unless the appearance have attracted significant outside published discussion. These have not.

She;s a editor of an informal section "The Therapists Voice" of personal commentary in a not very important journal by Routledge, a relatively minor publisher. The journal is in Scopus, but not Web of Knowledge--it might be notable, but that would make only the editor in chief notable, which she is not.

One book of hers in in 145 libraries, the other in 75 -- very low for popular self help books. Her three most cited articles in G Scholar have 25, 14, and 4 citations, which is not notable for a psychologist.  DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete (again -- salt this time). Nothing new since the last AfD. EEng (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per G11. As the user who created accepted the article at AfC, I inadvertently created accepted the article when I stepped away from the keyboard, and my 4 year old nephew took it upon himself to mash my keyboard while I was away (you can tell he's a future Wikipedian). I just today noticed the mistake, and I apologize for that. As DGG mentions, there's quite a few notability concerns, as there were in the original nomination (which, from what I can see, weren't fixed in the rewrite submitted to AfC). Signalizing (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * you mean you accepted it, the person who created it and bears primary responsibility for the promotionalism, is the original ed., who has written some promotional bios, but has also done some good work here. And the reason I did not delete by G4, is that this is much expanded over the other article, & I think created independently, and I think it unfair to use G4 in such situations.  DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed my original wording (whoops!). Signalizing (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Promotional.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:55, 1 July 2013 (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.