Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hani Miletski

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 notability is met Nosebagbear (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hani Miletski

[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)

This person got their doctorate from what our article on it describes as "an unaccredited, for-profit, degree-granting institution and resource center in the field of sexology" and self-published a book of her research. She's managed to get a few publications to accept her as an expert on sexual research but does not seem to be recognized, at all, by her peers as an expert. She simply does not appear to be particularly notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

commentI found this review [1] in The Journal of Sex Research so her work is at least discussed in reputable sources. Whether she has a reputable degree or not will not affect WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. The review is quite strong, it reads "This is the best overall survey of bestiality that I have read." but a single review is generally not enough for WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. Also all media coverage I could find about her related to her dissertation, so it sounds like a WP:BLP1E. --hroest 15:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the above, there's also some popular press which consults/quotes/interviews her, e.g. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] (though I don't have access to the fulltext of this last one). If this is all there is, I'm not so sure we're meeting WP:ANYBIO, but perhaps there's more? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the source provided above and also this scholarly source. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG per sources presented above. Jaysonsands (talk) 10:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above and a casual review of online sources, appears to pass WP:GNG. The article history gives the impression of sources being removed for being "fringe", etc., rather than attempting to improve the article. If the one remaining is adequate to be cited in an authoritative manner by an official government review that is notable in its own right. I also (02c) get the impression that the contentious nature of the topics covered by the author may be underlying a general ongoing desire to have them delisted from Wikipedia rather than improve what is a long-lasting biographical article. Harami2000 (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2021 (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.