Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Cooper Hakim

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Amy Cooper Hakim

Amy Cooper Hakim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

As usual with public speakers and authors there are quite a lot of references, but most of them look PR and promotional works. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as not convincing for WP:AUTHOR or anything close to it for that matter, and also quite noticeably hints at advertising, WP:NOT applies in that alone. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• Delete not a notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
• Keep notable psychologist and her works has been cited in many independent reliable sources and works has been published on National Center for Biotechnology Information. A well known academic member of American Psychological Association, she has been an external faculty in her domain for a number of universities including University of Phoenix, Columbia Southern University etc. Definitely pass the GNG criteria for inclusion. Paveroc (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOT. Sources cited in the article provide no indication of notability...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you please be specific on how it fails WP:GNG despite "Significant coverage" in independent reliable sources and how the cite sources do not provide no indication of notability? There are many sources on her on Google News such as these[1], [2], [3] etc. which can be included in the article and expanded. Paveroc (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Delete None of these references provide significant coverage about the subject. Notability cannot be inherited. The references seem to mention her book but that it is. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2016 (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.