Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karin Huffer


 * 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. ✗ plicit  23:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Karin Huffer

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article is a bio of a non-notable person. Other than (i) an obituary (ii) a single article by a local newspaper following a booksigning for one of her self-published books (iv) a faculty listing and (iv) another article in a local newspaper by one of her students, there are no reliable, independent, secondary, third party sources that mention her or her theories about "legal abuse syndrome" There are a handful of references to her and her theory (uniformly rejecting them) in some court decisions, but these are all primary sources. Also does not meet WP:NACADEMIC No published papers or articles other than self-published books, and Scholar only shows various listings of conferences at which she spoke, with no secondary coverage of the same. Banks Irk (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women,  and Psychology.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is one single hit for her in JSTOR, a footnote in an article by Alan Dershowitz. All the book hits I found through Google Books are from self-published books. The person is not notable as an academic, nor via the GNG. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. Huffer wasn't ever really an academic, but primarily someone who used journals to spread a theory that, quite incidentally, wasn't bad for business. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable, almost a pseudoscientist. Oaktree b (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant coverage found here, , where it passes the WP:GNG. Fade258 (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * None of those are reliable, independent, third party secondary sources. The first is an obit written by her family, posted on her own company's website. The second is a profile, again posted on her own website.  The third is an anonymous post on the page of a group blog site "Parent Advocates.org" titled "Stories and Grievances".  None of these references constitute "significant coverage"Banks Irk (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ohh, than redirect would be a good option rather than delete. Fade258 (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to redirect to. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. I found this on the academic deletion sorting list, but she does not appear to be an academic (nor to meet any of the academic notability criteria) so I think we need to evaluate her according to our general notability criteria, which require in-depth coverage in multiple reliably-published sources that are independent of the subject. A family-written obituary and a faculty profile do not count as independent or reliably published. The two local news pieces we have do cover Huffer's work in some depth, but the RN&R piece was written by a close associate (not independent) and the LVSun one is basically a publicity piece for her book. I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete,non notable, fails WP:NACADEMIC, Alex-h (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete and WP:SALT per above discussion. Adjunct at a college and professor at an institution of teaching, no independent sources, and self-published fringe books, do not add up to notability. No reasonable place to redirect. Person is deceased, so becoming notable in the future is unlikely. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Her self-published books don't make her a notable author, being adjunct faculty doesn't show notability, and there are few citations in Google Scholar. Also lacks the coverage necessary to meet the GNG. She meets no notability standards.Sandals2 (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2022 (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.