Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miriam Grossman

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 Speedy Keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Grossman

[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)

~~Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. All provided sources (except perhaps NZHerald, which is directly about subject's work) are not WP:SIGCOV.~~ Instances of WP:SYNTH and failed verification of inline sourced claims. Melmann 14:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sourcing was slightly subpar when nominated but I just added extra sources including more in-depth academic coverage of the person. I do not believe WP:NACADEMIC is the relevant criteria, as her notability comes from her being a quack and oppositional to real academics. Additionally, per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability - in addition to the sources that describe her activities in greater depth, in total RS show she's a prominent member of multiple conversion therapy groups who's been publicly advocating in multiple countries and court systems for years.

P.S. For disclosure's sake, I'd been thinking about writing an article on Grossman for a while and had the title watchlisted - last I'd checked a few months ago I thought she didn't meet GNG but I believe sources published since then have shifted the situation.

@Melmann, while I agree the article in its original state needed work, I'm interested to know what you think of the additional sources. Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is much better, definitely in the direction of WP:HEY. In my view, WP:NACADEMIC applies, since she appears to be primarily notable for her “research” on LGBTQ issues. But, with this additional sourcing, she may meet WP:NPERSON's basic criteria, especially now that there is more than one source of significant coverage. Melmann 20:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Conservatism, and Psychiatry. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now adequately sourced for notability.--Ipigott (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by the nominator - Edits since the initial nomination have improved sourcing, rendering the original reasoning outdated. WP:HEY Melmann 17:57, 7 June 2024 (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.