The result was delete. Although Sepcat5349 listed several sources in their (very long) keep !vote, I did not find upon inspection anything showing notability under any guideline. Most of the other arguments ("is continuing to grow in notability", "This page has been active under Wikipedia’s guidelines for three years", etc) are not policy based. Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Potential vanity page. Subject does not appear to meet WP:NBIO. She has written a book and sometimes writes articles (or comments in articles) online, but no indication of significance or significant coverage about her. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep The page was approved three years ago and has been active since then. In that time, the subject has grown in notability so I would think that if she met the notability guidelines then, there's no reason she shouldn't now. Especially when she has since released a book and grown in notability. That book was published by a major publisher (HarperCollins) and she is now a speaker for that publisher. The book was covered by publications with large readerships and continues to be discussed in connection with her career as a media personality (more on that below and throughout the article).
Further, I believe this subject does meet Wikipedia's current notability guidelines. For Entertainers (which the subject could fall under), Wikipedia has the criteria that the subject:
Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
The subject has appeared in numerous multiple television shows on a recurring basis including nationally syndicated shows like The Dr Oz Show, The Today Show, Access Live and The Doctors. She's also appeared on numerous local (local being LA so a large market) and web-based programs.
She has made and is making contributions to her academic field of psychology. She has been referred to in Psychology Today (an independent, neutral publication) as a "health and wellness expert in the field of positive psychology." Multiple other publications have referred to her as a leading expert in the field of positive psychology.
She also meets the Academic notability criteria of
The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
The subject consistently brings attention to the field of positive psychology through her work in the media (mentioned above and cited throughout the article).
She is currently developing curriculum for Pepperdine University and will soon join the university as an adjunct professor (proof of this can be provided via email as it has not yet been made public). She's already led a distinguished lecture series at Pepperdine. Additionally, Common Sense Media has asked her to join their Advisory Council and she has spoken at health-related conferences like this one hosted at UCLA (this is a PR link so obviously it won't be included in the article, but I wanted to showcase it here). I say all this to note that the subject both is a significant contributor to her academic field and is continuing to grow in notability within it and outside of it.
I think to say that the subject simply sometimes writes articles is a bit reductive as she is featured in major publications that bring attention to her academic field of study.
The Notability article states:
For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary.
I am grateful to user Calliopejen1 for their work in editing Wikipedia articles. They recently even rejected a new page I attempted to publish and I understand their reasoning for that one. However, for this one, they seem to be suggesting that because there is not coverage necessarily about the subject that the subject is not notable. In other words, they are focusing on whether or not the subject is “famous” or “popular" which as noted should be secondary in consideration of these articles. My argument is not that the subject’s page is justified because they are “famous” or “popular”, but rather that the subject makes significant contributions to her academic field through the media in which she is frequently working in and meets notability guidelines because of this. I could simultaneously make the argument that she is famous or popular through the fact that her book is well-regarded and sold well (it was No. 1 on Amazon’s Mental Health Hot New Releases) or that her work has endorsements from numerous noteworthy figures, but those are already in the article.
This page has been active under Wikipedia’s guidelines for three years. It has never been deemed as not notable or inappropriate and I have yet to see a reason as to why that should change now especially as the subject has grown in notability. If there is verbiage in the article that makes it feel too much like a vanity page, I am happy to accommodate suggested edits as I do believe in maintaining neutrality and objectivity as an editor of this page and as a new member of the Wikipedia community. However, the argument being made with regard to Notability simply does not make much sense to me as the page was deemed notable three years ago and I see no real argument as to why that should not be the case now.
Once again, as a frequent user of Wikipedia - I greatly value the work the volunteer editorial team does here. If there are things that need to be done to address objectivity or neutrality in the article, I am happy to address them either now or moving forward. But I do object to the argument about the subject's Notability and hope that I have adequately addressed those concerns here. Sepcat5349 (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)