Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judith Sewell Wright

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. Superficially, views appear evenly split between Keep and Delete. Closer inspection, however, shows the Delete views to be solidly anchored in notability guidelines, while the Keep views who bother to provide a reason all hang their !vote on WP:AUTHOR criterion #2 - "originating a significant new concept", for coining the term "soft addiction", without providing any evidence that the term is, indeed, significant or new. In fact, even an ATD in the form of a redirect to Soft addiction, which itself is a redirect to Behavioral addiction, would be odd, seeing as Wright's name isn't even mentioned in the target. And as some pointed out, coining a term that is not a significant new concept doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR C#2. Once the "soft addiction" basis is discarded as not supporting notability, we're left with a clear consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 23:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Sewell Wright

[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)

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Mdann52 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Law. Mdann52 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find book reviews, so not passing AUTHOR. No mentions in media that i can find, what's now used for sourcing in the article is primary or linked to paper sources that I can't locate online. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you need reviews for the books, they are in the Amazon postings of the books. I may not be a Wikipedia expert, but I do know that Judith has, in fact, written these books. If you want to look her up as an author in general: https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3AJudith+Wright+EdD&s=relevancerank&text=Judith+Wright+EdD&ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1

Does that somehow not qualify? I do not understand. KreftMM (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KreftMM: By "reviews" we normally mean articles discussing books and covering them in depth, not just reviews on shopping sites. Mdann52 (talk) 05:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that feedback. It will help me in other regards - however, I am no longer working on Judith's Wikipedia page in any regard. KreftMM (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. in WP:AUTHOR, one of the criteria for notability is that 'The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique'. It looks to me like Wright is either the originator of the concept of soft addiction or at the very least a leading author on the topic. Also, I can find book reviews- I am not sure where you were looking.Spiralwidget (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2024

@Spiralwidget: I note the soft addiction thing - but I don't know if it's a "significant new" concept, as the concept seemed to be known and studied under the name "behaviour addition" from before her time (and the article redirects there now) - however with that being the only claim to notability, I didn't think it met the bar. Mdann52 (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC) EDIT: I have to review this as instead a Comment. I could not find reviews outside of Amazon Books and she seems to receive remarkably little attention by major publications.

Reviews are available on the books in every place they are available for purchase. I can also provide additional book reviews, as well as sources for where she has been in the media. Such as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlE0y5gYH1I, https://www.grandmagazine.com/2018/03/transformational-learning-age/, https://beta.prx.org/stories/94668, https://blacktortoisepress.com/tag/oprah-winfrey-show/

I'll admit that I don't know what types of sources are preferred on Wikipedia, but I can assure you I can provide the right kind if you educate me. KreftMM (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too knowledgeable either, but per WP:RSPRIMARY, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over others. Procyon117 (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Illinois, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wright's coining of soft addiction, per WP:AUTHOR, makes her notable. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR, according soft addiction.--Mooon FR (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I refined my search to "Judith Wright" + soft addictions, and found multiple sources through ProQuest and Newspapers.com and through Google that verify she did coin the term. Sacramento Bee, Sac Bee continued, Orlando Sentinel, author, Judith Wright, coined the term "soft addictions" more than 12 years ago, Judith Wright, who labeled the phenomenon more than a decade ago, a term she coined several years ago, so she appears to meet WP:AUTHOR#2. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources provided by Isaidnoway, WP:AUTHOR#2 is satisfied. Sal2100 (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless an editor can provide references to reliable, fully independent sources that devote significant coverage to Sewell Wright. Sources brought forward are passing mentions of her, and quotations from her, generated by the marketing campaigns for her books. Sources that call her a "life coach and lifestyles expert" are clearly parroting her self promotional activities. Yes, she coined the phrase "soft addiction" but that refers to a psychiatric condition and she has no known formal training in psychiatry or psychology or psychotherapy or counseling or anything relevant. As for Amazon reviews, they are worthless for establishing notability since Amazon is in the business of selling almost everything including non-notable books by non-notable authors, as in this case. She is definitely not a "leading author" on Behavioral addiction. Many of the leading authors are in the reference section of that well-referenced article, and she is not among them. Cullen328 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons given by Cullen328, at least for now. No editor has yet provided examples of significant coverage of "soft addiction" in fully independent non-promotional venues/outlets. As far as I can tell, all the links to news clippings above are associated with Wright's books, interviews directly with Wright, promotions of her seminars, or all three. SunTunnels (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article needs an update, it certainly meets the notability criteria. Bexaendos (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Bexaendos, please point out reliable sources completely independent of Sewell Wright that devote significant coverage to Sewell Wright. Cullen328 (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2024 (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.