Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Sarkis
- 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 delete. --Coredesat 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This does not appear to pass WP:BIO. The only references given are one article about Sarkis in a University of Florida college paper...and Sarkis works at the University of Florida. Of the other two, one mentions Sarkis but she is by no means the primary subject. The other just lists recent books and has a brief paragraph about her book. None of those, in my opinion, add up to Sarkis being the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. 97 unique Google hits for "Stephanie Sarkis" and a mere 70 unique hits for "Stephanie Moulton Sarkis". Additionally, the creators of the aritlce (one registered, one anonymous) have only edited in reference to this person. This may also be a case of WP:VAIN. The fact that one of the external links is to the publicist of Sarkis makes this look even more like advertising. IrishGuy talk 01:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non notable, appears to be a vanity article to me -- wtfunkymonkey 01:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The publishing house is a legitimate specialist in psychology books, so it's not a vanity book. However, her book was published this year, and it's not on their in-house bestseller list. She's also only an adjunct assistant professor, which means not academically notable. If the book does well, or she writes more, then maybe. But not yet. .... Note, the anon ip editor resolves to Orlando, and she's from Gainesville. I'd bet it's a well-intentioned friend or family member who wrote this. Derex 10:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not academically notable per above, if there are more sources in the future it would be worthy, but not yet... --SunStar Net 10:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per notability & coverage concerns. --Dhartung | Talk 12:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This would make a fine professor's bio on a college's webpage, but it is simply not about a notable enough subject for Wikipedia. →Bobby← 15:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Speedy Close as per nomination. scope_creep 20:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nomination. Appears to be CoI and I have doubts as to whether it passes WP:BIO. Xdenizen 21:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An unpublished work not yet listed penned by an associate professor seems to fail criteria for WP:BIO and the article smacks of WP:SPAM.--Dakota 02:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There must be reviews not available online. The book was released in January 2006, and ranks 5,537 per Amazon. Ohconfucius 08:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Stephanie Moulton Sarkis redirects to Stephanie Sarkis. If the latter gets deleted, so should the former. --Lijnema 11:39, 10 November 2006 (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.