Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah D. Goode

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. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 05:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah D. Goode

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article is basically about a writer who writes. It lacks independent and reliable sources.

Analyzing each of the references, the 1st is a non-existent page link; the 2nd is the book of the biographer herself; and the 3rd and 4th are pages that make a brief presentation.

Therefore, I recommend deleting the page, because I understand that the biographer's notoriety has not been proven. The article does not meet the WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:PROF and WP:V. ✍ A.WagnerC (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have fixed the link in the first reference, and expanded the article with additional references and providing information on her views and work.Cdjp1 (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Closer to a profile than an objective article. Does not meet WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:PROF Freeranging intellect (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as either a writer or an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The current page has two reviews of her books. Here are two more: [1] [2]. Two books with several reviews is looking like a marginal pass of WP:NAUTHOR. The non-trivial citation numbers on the first book, while I don't think it's enough for WP:NPROF, helps support the WP:NAUTHOR case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per commentary later in the discussion suggesting potential notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Works in field of pop-pschology/sociology WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. She's not a pop psychologist; she's a sociologist who's been recognized for her work in her field. There are multiple reviews of her books, other academics reference her work, and she's treated by the press as an expert in understanding pedophiles. Cdjp1 expanded the article since the nomination, and the article now demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR based on the reviews of her works as explained by Russ Woodroofe above. TJMSmith (talk) 06:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as others have said regarding book reviews, etc. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep after adjustments, he started to comply, albeit weak, the WP:AUTHOR. ✍ A.WagnerC (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A.WagnerC: Did you post this on the correct page? This discussion is about a female author, and you nominated this article for deletion. :) — Toughpigs (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Toughpigs: I have no further interest in the elimination. ✍ A.WagnerC (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - A.WagnerC: Okay. So you're withdrawing the nomination? — Toughpigs (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Toughpigs: Yes. The elimination of the article is very controversial. ✍ A.WagnerC (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.