Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Kirschner

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 Keep.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diana Kirschner

looking at the user who created this article, it might be vanity - I'm not quite sure how notable she is. by the way, I haven't done enough research to have an educated opinion, so no vote from nominator-- ugen64 22:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep if sources get cited. Sounds like she's a notable author in her field. Allisonmontgomery69 22:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I left a {{userfy warning}} template on his/her userpage. According to WP:BIO, "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work" are notable. I've not done any searches, but that would seem to be the criterion relativce to this article in my opinion, unless you wish to apply WP:PROFTEST regarding Diana's work in the field of her Ph.D. BigNate37_T·C 22:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• This is not a vanity piece. I have collaborated with Dr. Diana Kirschner for over 25 years, have written three books with her and numerous peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters. Her work in integrative psychotherapy appears in four prominent books on the subject and a quick search in google scholar will yield some of her contributions. I would like to add a section on her specific seminal contributions to the field of psychotherapy that have influenced practitioners and researchers as well as a section on her more recent work as a media psychologist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skirschner (talk • contribs) 23:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC).
• Keep, possible speedy the new editor's working on sources, but a quick Scholar search indicates a clear keep, I'd say. Unless anyone has objections, I'd suggest a speedy keep (with no current suggestions to delete). Ziggurat 02:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Ziggurat - See also [1]--HJMG 08:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with the addition of eleven references, only about half of which list the subject as an author/editor. I do really wish the article wasn't started by someone involved with the subject through meatspace as it is always a cause of controversy. BigNate37_T·C 22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• DeleteNo Vote Google gets more hits for "Presidential-Goat" then for "Diana-Kirschner".

1. http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=presidential-goat Result about 435,000
2. http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=Diana-Kirschner Results about 579

Sumburgh 05:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sumburgh, please don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Ziggurat 05:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed vote after Ziggurat's suggestion: "I suggest that you not start 'stalking'" Sumburgh 23:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• The fact that Benjamin Harrison had goat has no bearing on the AfD discussion for Diana Kirschner. Please cite relevant examples of the Wikipedia notability guidelines if you intend to show that the subject of this article (which has enough sources to support a fully-fledged article) is non-notable. BigNate37_T·C 05:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Ziggurat but I am not sure this qualifies as a speedy keep. Yamaguchi先生 09:04, 1 August 2006 (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.