Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Franklin (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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 20:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Karen Franklin
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unimproved page re-added by editor over otherwise unanimous deletion decision.
 * Delete (from nominator). All the reasons the page was deleted remain true.  (Indeed, the reinstatement of the page by the single editor who opposed deletion is rather tendentious.)  No new material appears in this "new" version.  When asked directly what RS's are new (and when reminded that AfD is  about the subject's status and not article quality), the editor refused to answer, saying only to bring it here again.  (Also, rather tendentiously, IMO.)  See article's talk page and the original AfD. Barcaboy2 (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is a little bit of new material here: the Telegraph India 2015 reference. Maybe that's enough to save this from a G4 speedy deletion. But like all the others, it briefly quotes the subject without being an in-depth story about the subject nor an in-depth look at the results of a study she conducted. So nothing of significance has changed since the previous time the article was nominated. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I wasn't involved in the original discussion, but there seems to be reasonable RS to make this notable. It's a bit of stub, but far more here than in many BLPs.Mattnad (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Look more carefully at the sources. Most of them (especially the bigger names among them) were there in the previous AfD. They are not the in-depth coverage of the subject (or of one of her research studies) as required by WP:GNG, but rather they include quotes by the subject with a brief gloss of who she is to put the quotes in context. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Could you be more specific, Mattnad? Which RS meets which notability guideline?  Although some RS's point in the right direction, they don't cross the threshold.  That is, there are quotes in media, but none are about the subject herself (which PROF requires.  There are some few awards, but none are at the national level (which PROF requires).  Etc.Barcaboy2 (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Regardless of past votes, the current Franklin article is solid. She won awards such as here and here. There are numerous reliable references in the NY Times and Psychology Today (which lists Franklin as an expert) and NPR and Public Record. She has a solid research record here; this article here was cited by 206 other studies; she has been published here and here and many other places. References in Psychology Today again, in Frontline, also another Frontline, plus in the Los Angeles Times and the IB Times. There are more references in the article. Clearly, Franklin easily passes the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Note. Possibly there is some kind of academic or professional rivalry going on here in Wikipedia, with one academic, probably a psychologist, systematically going after and trying to delete articles and viewpoints of other psychologists. While I am not an admin skilled with sockpuppet investigations, there are disturbing patterns. For example, both Barcaboy2 and User:James Cantor have this tendency to AfD articles about other psychologists, and then vote 'Delete' in addition to nominating them, such as for Randi Ettner (Barcaboy2 nominated, voted Delete, and Cantor voted Delete as well), Charles Allen Moser (Barcaboy2 nominated and voted Delete), and David Oliver Cauldwell (Cantor nominated, voted Delete). But overall the evidence for me is that articles about qualified professional psychologists are getting deleted when there are excellent references, as in the case of Franklin; similarly, the Ettner article should not have been deleted either; there are numerous references for her. Evidence of an academic rivalry between Franklin and psychologist James Cantor can be found here and it makes sense for us to wonder whether this rivalry is going on here in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: I requested at my talk page that NeilN or a different administrator restore the previous version of the article for comparison. Here it is: User:Flyer22 Reborn/sandbox this link; that's the stubbed version, though. I was remembering the non-stubbed version. During the previous WP:AfD, I think Barcaboy2 and/or Tomwsulcer, and maybe others, significantly reduced the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * NeilN also restored the larger version for comparison. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, sufficient coverage. I added another reference to a profile in a textbook (reprinted on her website). KateWishing (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * KateWishing also reformatted some of the article for a better presentation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lots of the above seem to be Franklin's work, web pages, etc. rather than reliable, independent sources. Likewise, minor awards cited above, like this, do not weigh significantly. References like this seem to be professional contact information – much of the material on Franklin out in the wild seems to be of this nature. Finally, her "solid research record" appears to be about an h-index of 6, although the GS listing of her publications/citations clearly contains the work of other people having the same name. Agricola44 (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC).
 * Keep. I commented, but did not !vote, in the first AfD. I think this person passes the WP:PROF test fairly well by now, but the article itself could use more editing. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Adequate indicia of notability, solid sourcing.  Montanabw (talk)  23:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep but rewrite to remove some of the hyperbola. The notability is based on the publications, using the customary criterion for WP:PROF. Her most cited paper has been referred to 206  times; others at 61, 52, 38, 30.... The controversy is not over this, but her criticism of Blanchard's theory of Hebephilia. However, with respect to the awards, the vaguely referred to   "Distinguished Scientific Achievement (2012)" ? is from the California Psychological Association, and is therefore not a national level award, the vaguely referred to Guggenheim is a Fellowship to complete her dissertation,{http://www.karenfranklin.com/kf/credentials/} and the award from the Horowitz Trust is one of the 4 they awarded in 2001  does not seem to be a notable award.    DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - good sourcing. per WP:PROF.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2015 (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.