Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Whitney

Diana Whitney

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Doesn't meet BIO. No Reliable independant source. Not verifiable. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The subject looks at first sight as thought she ought to be notable; Google Scholar finds 347 citations for her co-written book Appreciative Inquiry, and another co-written book is in over 300 WorldCat libraries. But the Google Scholar results for her name seem to be only citations and acknowledgements, and I can't find any significant news coverage in Google News Archive or LexisNexis. Perhaps someone more familiar with the field will know a better place to look for sources? EALacey (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability - fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I'm going to add in some awards and some additional independent references. I haven't ever created an article - so it is a learning process on my behalf. I have access to the awards, and articles are forthcoming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KamiKG (talk • contribs) 16:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis of WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete without prejudice as clearcut spam. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Top GS cites seem to be 352, 240, 213, 183, 164.... h index = 17. Looks like a clear pass of WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete limited credible third-party sources Vartanza (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of third party sources, one thousand of them on Google Scholar. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Which of those thousand are about her? 160.39.213.222 (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep WP:PROF is an alternative to WP:BLP, and it is enough to meet one of them. There appears to be some information to show that the candidate might meet WP:PROF, as an authority on her subject. The proof would the number of times she is quoted and acknowledged. because that is how the academic world expresses its views of notability. However, most of her books are not in a significant number of academic libraries. Some of the Google Scholar results are for what I assume is another person, who writes romance novels. Many of the cites to our subject are essentially self-citations from her and her associates, but perhaps half of them are genuine, and does show a certain amount of influence. The awards are remarkably minor; the academic position listed are not regular faculty. She might more realistically be considered to meet WP:AUTHOR; this would require 3rd party reviews of the books, which I have not yet looked for systematically, though there appear to be a few in Google News Archive. So a weak keep only, because almost all the publications are either self-published or published by organizations closely affiliated with her; the 2 exceptions are the only one with substantial library holdings by a regular publisher, Crown, and she has a book in press with McGraw Hill. Essentially all of them are by multiple authors, and she is not usually the first--they seem to be written by a team; furthermore, the titles and the absence of holdings in major libraries for most of them give the distinct impression that they are mostly variants of each other. The article needed major rewriting, and I have done so, eliminating the repetitive and the trivial. I apologize for not getting here sooner, but I was dealing with the current emergency on BLP deletions. DGG ( talk ) 15:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]