Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peggy J. Kleinplatz


 * 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Lots of participation here with good policy/guideline based arguments. Unfortunately they are all over the place, often citing the exact same guideline with different conclusions. Given the level of participation I doubt a third relisting will add clarity. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Peggy J. Kleinplatz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable. Doesn't meet PROF. Starburst9 (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, have created an article on Kleinplatz' book New Directions in Sex Therapy. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - agreed that PROF is not met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazz4477 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Individual meets WP:GNG.  If you remove the middle initial from searches, google and news she gets tons of press coverage.  Also meets WP:PROF per "has a substantial impact outside academia."  Montanabw (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete (from nominator) and Comment: That's not what those hits show: They are mostly local to her (Ottawa), tid-bits in tabloid magazines (Chatelane), or hits to sites selling her book. By and large, the hits are not about her at all, but about alternative sexuality with her providing a quote.  That's not PROF.Starburst9 (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Article is currently a CV. This material should be removed. Agricola44 (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not seeing evidence of meeting WP:PROF or WP:GNG.  Search results noted above establish identity (as a therapist with academic appointments), but not notability (they do not provide any "substantial" coverage of the subject herself). Banglange (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, comment by is misleading ie. "That's not what those hits show: They are mostly local to her (Ottawa), tid-bits in tabloid magazines (Chatelane), or hits to sites selling her book." clicking on  google search, the 3rd 6th entry on the 1st page is none of these, it is to an article in the Canada-wide Globe & Mail about a study carried out by Kleinplatz and her team on sex and aging, just saying. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes GNG. As for, if local sources are reliable sources, they do not need to be dismissed just because they are local. They can be used to establish notability. In addition, she and reviews of her work turn up on HighBeam and EBSCOhost. I'll try to add to the article later if I have time. Also, if I'm not mistaken, the nominator for the article is ineligible to !vote since their deletion nomination is already a !vote. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. From PROF: "A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." Being HighBeam or EBSCOhost isn't enough either: "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." Banglange (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing PROF. As you can see, I said "Passes GNG," above. I see enough sources to pass GNG and I'm going to add them to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I added a number of sources to the article that discussed her and her work. These are not items that were authored by her. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Notability not established: doesn't meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. There don't seem to be any reliable secondary sources of sufficient quality, just a lot of links to the subject's own work. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as WP:AUTHOR: multiple books, one of which has its own article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per . Passes GNG. -- Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2017 (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.