Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Fennell


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 13:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Patricia Fennell

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:BIO no secondary independant sources about the subject. The illness model the subject sells is only reviewed by the subject and collaborators in an professional activist organization, not independant. The article was made like an ad for subjects' company. RetroS1mone  talk  13:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Uncertain Her book is published by Wiley, a respectable publisher (though only some of their books are actually at a research level, & I doubt this one is.) She contributed a chapter to a major OUP subject encyclopedia. Indicates possible notability in her subject. Book reviews needed. DGG (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * there seems to be more material added since I wrote this. DGG (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   — RetroS1mone   talk  01:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   — RetroS1mone   talk  01:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   — RetroS1mone   talk  01:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't have time right now to look into this in detail, so I refrain from !voting for the moment. However, I must say that the article looks like a piece of puffery and like the typical piece that tries to make a non-noitable person seem notable: a talk given here or there, a chapter written here or there, all that is nothing special, even if it is in some Encyclopedia. When one edits an encyclopedia, sometimes you don't find anybody for certain subjects and will be happy to include a junior person, because they might be willing to do so (in Life Sciences, publishing a book chapter scores only barely higher than publishing a meeting abstract when your CV is being evaluated by promotion/tenure committees, study sections, and such). Whatever happens to this article, a lot of cleanup is needed. --Crusio (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment For her speaking events see the talk page, there are about 80 there, but finding independent sources rather than her website will take time. Ward20 (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources or not, I don't care much for speaking engagement. Talking and writing is what we scientists do. Unless the speaking engagements concern keynote or plenary addresses at major meetings, they don't contribute anything to notability. As an example, our weekly seminar this week was by a grad student interviewing for a postdoc position to be taken after his thesis defense. --Crusio (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted. Since you have expertise in this field, what important criteria would you look for in an encyclopedic article about this topic? Ward20 (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, if there are non-trivial sources discussing her and her work, she would satisfy the criteria of WP:BIO. Otherwise, I would look for citations to her publications in other scientific publications (using GoogleScholar of Web of Science), as that would show significant influence on her peers and her field or anything else that might fullfil one of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. Eric Yurken has done that below and there doesn't seem to be much, so in all, I am leaning towards Delete, too. --Crusio (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, most from the scholarly citations of Fennell are in articles by her, by her collaborator and partner with her business, or in a journal she edits that is not indexed by medline, so not independant. RetroS1mone   talk  15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * keep is notable, cited across significant books in her field in google books. should have been marked for improvement.---Buridan (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Citation impact seems to be low. One can find references/links to her “Fennell Four Phase Model”, one of the main claims of notability in the article, through a Google search, but many of those references/links seem to trace back to the Wikipedia article. Her book published by Wiley in 2003, mentioned by DGG, is in 275 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2009 (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.