- 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 no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sharon Kivland (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)
- Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for artists or for academics (contested prod) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a section on one of the subject's publications (A Case of Hysteria) and included quotes from a review in the Journal of European Psychoanalysis to attempt to show the importance of the subject's work in this field. I'm currently trying to find more ways to meet the criteria for creative professionals, but I'm confused in some ways; for example, how is 'significant' supposed to be understood objectively? It's my opinion that much of the subject's work and academic pursuits are significant, but I'm not sure how I'm expected to prove or justify this - I could cite reviews and articles, but again I'm not sure where the 'significance' border line is. Thanks for your help. Badprussian (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to point #3 of WP:CREATIVE, I think the important part is that the work has to have "been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Citing reviews and articles would certainly help to demonstrate that that criterion is met. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2012 (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.