Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peggy J. Kleinplatz (2nd 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. Consensus is clear that subject meets WP:AUTHOR. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy_J._Kleinplatz

[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)

Does not meet PROF Banglange (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR based on reviews of the books listed in the article. I added several of the reviews to the article. The first book already has its own wikipedia article. Thsmi002 (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS h-index of 25 just adequate to pass WP:Prof#C1 in the very highly cited field of pop-psychology/sexology. Nominator's rationale is unexplicit and inadequate. I feel a WP:Trout coming on. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I helped improve the article in the last AfD. There are plenty of reviews of her work WP:AUTHOR in addition to her passing the h-index as indicated above. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reviews of multiple books apiece add up to a pass of WP:AUTHOR. The case for passing WP:PROF#C1 also looks pretty good. XOR'easter (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not entirely convinced by the case for WP:PROF but WP:AUTHOR looks clear enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, as multiple WP:RS reviews of her works (disclosure: i created article on one of her books, New Directions in Sex Therapy), i would like to thank Banglange for nominating this article leading to the snowy confirmation of Kleinplatz's notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Banglange is a WP:Sock of Starburst9 (talk · contribs), who nominated this article for deletion with an identical rationale in May 2017. I recently called the editor out as a sock at Talk:James Cantor. I am thinking on what to do since it's clear to me that there is no WP:LEGITSOCK reason for the editor to have both accounts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2018 (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.