Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerry Sulkowicz (3rd 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 keep. Overall consensus is for article retention, based upon the subject having received enough significant coverage in reliable sources to pass

WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Kerry Sulkowicz

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

Lack of notability. The article is just his CV or a similar piece of advertisement, with links to institutions he is connected to. There is a source praising him, but there are a blog post, which reads more like advertising. The NY Times article is neither about his work, nor about him. It is just about how psychoanalysts market themselves and sell their services, and citing Sulkowicz of a psychoanalyst who "treats" his patiences through e-mail.

Article was already deleted once by the first AfD. ~~The 2nd AfD also got enough discussion to generate consensus (delete too).~~

I have placed this article into speedy delete.

A PROD was removed since the page had already been through the AfD. Abaget (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to nominator. Please note the the previous AfD deletion was overturned at deletion review (Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_February_3) with leave to recreate the article. G4 speedy may not apply. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with that. I was too speedy when putting the tag of speedy deletion. A normal AfD would be enough, I suppose. Abaget (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG; fails WP:PROF; WP:ACADEMIC. He is definitely accomplished but has not received significant, in-depth coverage. Less said about his daughter the better. Notably article creator is SPA who only edited this article and the Mattress Show.
YO 😜 22:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. There are several secondary sources. This was kept at deletion review in February, and I can't see any reason to have nominated it again. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 05:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the references to him in the Financial Times. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is an interview in Psychiatric Times, a Q.and A. in the New York Times - which presumably picked him as the expert to interview precisely because he is a notable psychiatrist, the bio Bloomberg published when he became a columnist, the fact that he was a columnist for Fast Company, and a lot, a really significant number, of authors and journalists who go to him for quotes and insight, quoting him at length, with brief descriptors. Institutions also turn to him - and the fact that they do gets coverage [1]. It's adds up to a profile high enough to constitute notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing GNG and SCHOLAR. He's often cited for a brief quote here and there, but there's nothing in any detail about him in the sources. (I am unable to read all the Financial Times sources because they limit you to 3/day without a subscription, but the three I read were all of this type - him being consulted for one short statement.) Interviews, Q&A's, and him writing a few articles are not enough for notability - those are all primary. The New Yorker source mentioned by E.M.Gregory is also a passing mention. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (changed vote) I was unaware of the following sources mentioned in the deletion review: [2], [3], [4], [5]. Altogether it's enough for notability. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the criteria WP:ACADEMIC is borderline but just this side of notable, and he does meet WP:GNG. There are quite a few reliable and independent sources.Pax Verbum 05:24, 18 June 2015 (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.