Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristy Holtfreter


 * 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 rough consensus to delete this article, especially given a genuine request to do so 2020103010017404. As pointed out, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE says "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." Here, there *is* a rough consensus, and the only issue to consider is whether the subject is "non-public". Given that they are clearly not very high-profile, I do not think that there is enough here to suggest that the policy does not apply. Black Kite (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Kristy Holtfreter

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a marginally notable subject, and account claiming to represent them has requested deletion (see history). Their request doesn't require deletion, but warrants a discussion on topic, for a non-famous person. At the moment of this nomination, 5 out of 6 citations are to her university (ASU). I don't see substantial independent coverage discussing her, as opposed to articles by her, or articles using her as a source about something else. I will concede she is well published and successful in her field. But, I feel that doesn't rise above the typical professor, who has to be published and seen as an expert in their field. This is a borderline case, and I could be turned, if I saw substantial coverage by somebody with no connection to her or ASU. Rob (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. The creator of the article was going off of WP:NPROF, but it's not clear what qualifies Holtfreter here—they may have been referring to her editorship in Feminist Criminology (criterion 8), but that journal's article says it ranks in the bottom half of publications for that field. I am unable to locate major independent news coverage, etc., that might bolster claims of adequate notability. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The case for notability through WP:PROF and highly cited publications is not marginal. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Haven't looked into this too deeply but WP:BIODEL likely applies if nc/borderline, especially if the editor claiming to be the individual verifies their identity through OTRS (not sure if that's strictly required, or if the subject has done that yet). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, per David Eppstein, *IF* the anon is the subject, they seem to have a poor grasp on how having her published works cited almost 4000 times would naturally lead to her also being written about. She works in the public domain so remaining invisible isn’t an option after so many articles have been authored.  Glee anon 00:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. gnu 57  21:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 *  Keep . Passes WP:Prof. I'm not sure of the veracity of the requests for deletion. If they are genuine I would not object to delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC).Xxanthippe (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC).
 * Delete as per request of the subject / WP:BIODEL. This is a person who has not sought publicity and female academics get enough crap as it is. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a resume. All these references are to her institution. Most independent source I could find was Brittanica. Trillfendi (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Independence of sourcing is a complete irrelevance for academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, the article can’t primarily be based on the institution she works for. That’s not how Wikipedia works. And one of the sources is literally called “Kristy Holtfreter CV”. That is crazy (worse that the source is dead). Trillfendi (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * CVs are perfectly acceptable as sources for non-controversial factual information. See WP:BLPSELFPUB. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The case for passing WP:PROF is good, and the article content seems rather dry and unprovocative. It would help to get confirmation that the person requesting deletion really is the subject (sadly, a harasser trying to get a woman's page deleted sounds all too plausible, for example). As to the sourcing concerns, while additional secondary sources would be good, there's a big difference between using a CV as a reference and writing an article in the manner of a CV. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep C1 is likely met . ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, if the identity of the requester can be verified, otherwise snow keep. With lots of papers with 100+ citations, small author list, first author, etc; the case for WP:NPROF C1 is solid.  That's supported by the chief-editorship of a new-ish journal.  There is no question that this would be a keep in the absence of a request from the subject.  As XOR&#39;easter points out, it is not certain that we have such a request; even if we do, I don't think notability is marginal as per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. we only delete on request if the notability is marginal. This isn't marginal, going by the criteria in WP:PROF. Nor does she try to stay strictly private--Google shows a vimeo lecture, and chair  of conferences However, her work does deal with consumer frauds, so if there are genuine problems of harassment or the like, the ed. or whoever knows what they are should email me confidentially  as a member of arb com. But if there are, I'm not sure how removing the Wikipedia article would help considering the thousand of ghits. (the article is bona fide--it comes from   a WP project)  DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIODEL. Sure, she may pass WP:NPROF but it's not clear to me from the google search nor article that she passes the GNG. In that, independent reliable sources write enough about HER or her writings to support an article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. The problem I see is that there is no evidence that the multiple requests to delete by a red link are genuine. There are procedure for such requests to identify themselves and these have not been used. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC).
 * Agree, we shouldn't be doing a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE without OTRS verification that it is actually the person in question. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, at the moment we have no way of knowing if the deletion request really comes from the article's subject. I have left a detailed reply regarding how to file an OTRS ticket in response to User:Splishsplashsplosh's question at Teahouse, and I also left a note at User talk:Splishsplashsplosh. We will have to see if they follow up. Nsk92 (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Subject has requested deletion via OTRS with identity verified. User:Splishsplashsplosh is verified as Dr. Kristy Holtfreter. OTRS agents can see documentation at 2020103010017404. Courtesy pings to, , , , , and who indicated above that identity confirmation may affect their opinion in this discussion. I have not personally reviewed this article and take no position in the deletion discussion. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 16:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you. I am actually undecided at the moment but am leaning towards delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. The subject certainly unambiguously passes WP:PROF, but notability is not overwhelming here and she is not particularly visible as a public figure, even taking into account DGG's comments above. It would help if User:Splishsplashsplosh participated in this AFD and provided a bit more of an explanation for why she wants the article deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE- now that identity has been confirmed, BLPREQUESTDELETE says we can delete for marginally notable people, which applies here. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to know the reason of the subject for the request to delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC).


 * Delete Marginally notable person; the person in question has requested a delete; Only primary sources in the references; Vikram Vincent 11:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - The subject easily passes GNG and WP:PROF. She holds a notable post in an reputed instituation. Serankail (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You have a strong point about PROF, but are completely wrong about WP:GNG. GNG requires substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject.  There is not a single source, independent of the subject, who writes substantially about the subject.  5 out of 7 citations are to her employer's website.  One is to a publication she contributes to.  The only independent citation that  helps her notability is https://ascdwc.com/awards/professional-awards, which definitely helps the PROF argument.  However, it merely lists her name, so doesn't help GNG.  --Rob (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I can find some thousand or more sources independent of the subject by clicking on the scholar link. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC).
 * Those sources are certainly independent bit it is unclear, without substantial further examination, if any of them can be used to justify passing WP:GNG here. GNG requires that the sources address the subject "directly and in detail". Citations in scholarly articles usually don't do that (although there are exceptions). Typically, they are brief mentions of the work cited, perhaps 1-2 sentences. A published review would be different in this regard, or a paper/chapter specifically dealing with the subject's paper/book/monograph. But it's unclear, without looking further, if any of the citations in GoogleScholar provide coverage of this kind. Nsk92 (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Its even on the keeps, and deletes. Feels like it needs to more time to make it more clearer.
 * Blocked for spamming, likely WP:UPE. MER-C 15:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per - we have tended to delete articles about academics who are marginally notable and request deletion of their article. I would agree with this longstanding practice. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The subject is definitely notable under WP:PROF and WP:PROF. However, WP:PROF is a fairly technical guideline, and I feel that in the case of authenticated WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE requests (such as this one), there needs to be a stronger case for notability, preferably under WP:GNG or WP:BIO, in order to override the subject's wishes. Here the available coverage appears to be insufficient to establish clear notability under WP:GNG or WP:BIO. I would have much preferred for User:Splishsplashsplosh to comment in this AfD directly, but since that's apparently not forthcoming, ultimately I believe that deletion is the correct option here. Nsk92 (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2020 (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.