Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristen O'Hara


 * 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. There is a consensus that she does not meet WP:PROF. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Kristen O&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

No real assertion of notability per WP:BIO or WP:PROF; has a single fringe theory that foreskins make sex better which resulted in the publication of a single primary source journal article in 1999. Sources include a book published by the page's subject, a note that she gave a talk at a symposia, and two independent articles - one two-paragraph mention in Salon and a second lengthier article in a non-notable, otherwise unused online magazine. Ultimately, we don't have wikipedia pages for people who happen to have written a book. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete due as insufficiently notable. I've previously raised concerns at the article's talk page. Jakew (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, there's coverage there in multiple secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 11:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think it is funny to label Ms. O'Hara's penetrating insight as a "fringe theory". --Lambiam 13:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Cirt, I only see the coverage as incredibly trivial and tangential to her ideas. She has essentially presented a new scholarly theory, suggesting WP:PROF.  I can't find any indication that any of the 9 criteria in PROF have been met.  There are six citations on the page; one is to the book she has written.  Three of the sources simply indicate she has been quoted.  The fourth is another link to her article.  Only the Disinformation book, from a single non-scholarly (somewhat fringey) publisher, has any significant coverage - and it's about her idea, not "her".  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Jayjg (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is impressively written and wikipedia lacks articles in this area. Most genital integrists on WP are specialists in other fields. It seems to meet general notibility guidelines and has reliable sources. Pass a Method   talk  19:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the theory or the theorist? I don't think O'Hara passes PROF, and if we're talking about the theory - it's a single minor primary study that should at best be used cautiously as a reference. There certainly isn't enough evidence to merit the "theory" passing WP:N and having a separate page. Rarely do we have articles on specific journal papers, and when we do it's because it garners significant attention - see for example the Rind et al. controversy.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Claims the article is "impressively written" are not effective arguments for keeping it. Edison (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete -- does not satisfy WP:PROF. Quis separabit?  20:38, 17 January 2012 (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.