Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shari Thurer (2nd nomination)


 * 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 . (non-admin closure)  SITH   (talk)   15:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Shari Thurer
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NAUTHOR due to lack of independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. Doesn't appear to meet any of the auto-keep criteria of WP:PROF either. Arguments which led to the keep closure of the AFD fourteen years ago seem uncompelling.  SITH   (talk)   15:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

*Like it was said, her book is notable for Wikipedia, but she herself is not. The article could have been repurposed as The Myths of Motherhood but there is no content here to so. Shari fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, nor any special criteria outside of it is met (no impact, no high citation number for PROF, no notable awards for BIO, nothing). Also the fact this article survived in this permastub state for FOURTEEN YEARS (!!) tells enough about her notability and how many articles like these will slip through sadly. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Myths of Motherhood has been cited over 400 times according to Google Scholar, and was reviewed in San Francisco Chronicle, Seattle Times, Chicago Tribune, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, and The New York Times, among others. So at a minimum that book is notable. Bakazaka (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. As agreed above, her book Myths of Motherhood has multiple published reviews. But, although less well known, her other book The End of Gender does also have multiple published reviews . So she passes WP:AUTHOR for more than one book. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR per David Eppstein's argument. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep As well as reviews of the two books already mentioned, there was plenty of coverage of her work before she published Myths of Motherhood. In 1980, there were articles in many US newspapers and some Canadian ones about 'A hidden bias in children's books' against the disabled or those who looked different (eg the Boston Globe . In 1982, articles about 'Surgery: The Mind Can Be as Affected as the Body, Doctors Discover', eg the Los Angeles Times . Her advice is quoted (7 paras) in 'Mother's Day tips for stepmothers' before she had published Myths of Motherhood (eg the Boston Globe . Some of those sources include info about her age and her husband, if there's a concern about biographical information. So that's over 25 years of coverage of her work - she definitely meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR per David and WP:GNG per Rebecca. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2019 (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.