Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Spelman


 * 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. Despite a good-faith rewrite to remove the promotional nature of the earlier versions, there still appears to be a rough consensus that the sourcing is insufficient to pass the notability bar since many of the sources lack independence or reliability. Other sources are not about Spelman but rather refer to her for commentary. Lemongirl942's analysis in this matter is comprehensive. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Rebecca Spelman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wholly promotional article. Does not pass GNG. References are not significant. Created just to promote. Variation 25.2 (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete even if notable, WP:TNT on this - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC) changed, see below
 * Speedy Delete please as this is essentially PR for her works and career, not one piece comes close to being both substantially significant and non-PR. SwisterTwister   talk  19:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I note that pretty much all the text is by SPAs - David Gerard (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: I prodded this last year soon after it was created but it was reverted by the initiating editor and has no improved much since then. However, I was never really happy with its notability per David Gerard. ww2censor (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks a claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * delete fails GNG; obvious advertisement. Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * delete Fails GNG and advert. - Mar11 (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment SlimVirgin has done some editing, so you may want to review your choice. ww2censor (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * hmm, that's vastly improved. you think she passes notability muster? - David Gerard (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , it's borderline, but I think she does meet GNG, though there's clearly a strong PR element. She appears fairly regularly in the media when they need a quote from a psychologist (Google news search). There's an interview in The Independent ; a mention in the Los Angeles Times of her research for Spotify (I assume based on a press release); a column in The Huffington Post ; a couple of BBC radio interviews (e.g. from 01:40:55); and several television appearances. SarahSV (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * yeah, it's clear one of her most important professional skills is PR. But she's probably actually a known name, yeah - David Gerard (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * weak keep SlimVirgin has applied the requisite TNT and the article is now readable and makes its notability point! - David Gerard (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * She is good at getting her name out there but there are still insufficient independent reliable sources with significant discussion. The sources are SPS, directories, or passing mentions. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given the rewrite by SV, I believe that additional discussion is prudent. joe deckertalk 03:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe deckertalk 03:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Still fails GNG to my view. While SlimVirgin and others have improved this vastly (from the previous glaring-promo version), WP:GNG expects that sources cover the subject directly. For GNG to be met, we would therefore ideally see external sources dealing with the subject. Directly. Instead what we mainly have (as was evidenced by the previous "list of articles mentioning the subject"), is a bulk of trivial coverage. The only external source that seems to cover the subject directly (and not just refer to the subject indirectly while covering another subject) is the Nenagh Guardian article. As article however pretty much says "this local person will be on TV", I'm not sure it supports a notability claim. Not that satisfies GNG on its own in any case. Personally I wonder if this is just WP:TOOSOON. Upshot: Delete - w/o barrier to recreation if reliable/non-trivial sources (that deal with subject directly) are later published. Guliolopez (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * weak keep Still feels like spam, no offense to SV, given that the sources are spammy, I don't see a way around it. But...  yeah, the mirror source is a fine one and the rest are enough to push it over the bar. Hobit (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak abstain. I can't say with confidence that the coverage satisfies GNG (or any other guideline), but it is significantly more than mere passing mentions, single-event coverage, or self-promotion. Between the relatively wide spread of news outlets that have cited her as an expert reference on psychological matters, including the Independent interview cited by Slim that covered the subject personally and not merely as a source, as well as the modest coverage attending her Fright Show debut, I think it would be best for the article to be kept (or at least incubated in draft space). However, out of reluctant deference to our guidelines, I abstain. Rebb  ing  13:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per SlimVirgin's good work on the article. From Notability (people): "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The Daily Mirror article here provides substantial coverage of the subject. This article from the Nenagh Guardian provides three paragraphs of coverage about the subject and notes "See the full story in this Wednesday's issue." The Independent article here provides two paragraphs of coverage about the subject. The Los Angeles Times article here provides two paragraphs of coverage about the subject. "[M]ultiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", so Rebecca Spelman passes Notability (people). Cunard (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * here are SV's edits. The sources that were added were:
 * puffy interview - Jessica Elliott (11 January 2016). "How to get that job: Dr Becky Spelman, psychologist", The Independent
 * discussion of a "study" she did for Spotify to come up with a Spotify playlist that "can help reduce the anxiety associated with fear of flying" (I am now vomiting) - Tracy Brown (28 May 2013). "Stressed out? Here are songs that soothe a traveler's soul", Los Angeles Times.
 * listing of her columns at HuffPo. -  "Dr Becky Spelman", The Huffington Post.
 * passing mention (a clause) in an article about a Fright Club episode -
 * to support the previously unsourced content that she is on the Gadget Show: an episode of that show on vimeo - "Dr Becky Spelman on the Gadget Show", Channel 5, courtesy of Vimeo.
 * If this article is kept we should be sure to mention that she saw fit to give an extended quote providing psychological insight to the Daily Mail about why female celebrities are adopting "fish gape" at photo ops (ref). Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as I'm not happy with the sources. I expect there to be reliable secondary coverage and the quality of sources needs to be better than some trashly tabloids. 's analysis above makes sense as well.
 * "Dr Becky Spelman" at Huffpost Written by her, so not independent
 * Telegraph passing mention and the column is written by her co-celebrity on the show
 * Nenagh guardian 4 sentence coverage (< 90 words) brief coverage. Not sure where is the full story and how long it is.
 * Daily Mirror Sensationalist tabloid. These shouldn't be used for notability.
 * LaTimes Brief promotional coverage about a "study" and little actually about the subject. (This looks like a redressed press release sent by Spotify, what with all the links in it)
 * 3 minute interview "The Independent" Primary source (subject talking about self)
 * Daily mail Tabloid report. Another "study"
 * There's isn't enough secondary coverage in reliable sources which substantially discusses the subject (and I personally think this is TOOSOON. We expect high quality sources for BLPs. It is also very clear that the subject is good at promoting themselves and some of the references reflect that. I would have swung to a keep if I would have found some significant secondary coverage in a reliable source. But I don't see any at the moment. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Self-promoting professional, getting the usual coverage her PR agencies are able to obtain. "Commentators" always get mentioned whenever they appear, so the bar for accepting sources in this field is and should be on the high side.  DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The fact that the subject appeared on a show does not overcome the lack of independent sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. If the article is purged from the WP:PROMO content, there won't be much left. Sample:
 * After obtaining her doctorate, Spelman provided cognitive behavioural therapy for the South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust and for Harley Therapy, a private practice. In 2011 she set up her own practice, the Private Therapy Clinic in London. As of 2016 the company runs an additional two clinics in London and two abroad.


 * K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - she is notable enough. The subject has appeared on National TV in Britain several times, including a stint as co-host of a reality show. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * appearing on national TV several times is not bare notability, is 's lack of notability .  DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The first source in a national source and doesn't establish world wide notability. The second does not establish notability but just verifies her status as a clinical psychologist. In the third article she is basically an author, the article is basically by her not about her. The fourth source is trivial coverage about her, do we have an article only anybody who has conducted a piece of research? Huffington Post is the fifth source, but it's just a link to her having an author page not articles about her. The sixth source isn't even national but sub-national, do I really need to explain that one? LinkedIn is used as the seventh source, that does not establish notability, almost anyone can make a page on that. The eighth source is primary. Her being on a TV show is what source nine is about, but just being on a TV show does not establish notability. I removed the source that was previously the tenth source as it was probably a copyright violation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2016 (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.