Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frances Heussenstamm

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Heussenstamm

[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)

I'm not seeing that this individual is notable. In the article, the first two references are Amazon ads for books she wrote, the third is dead, the domain having been registered to the article's subject. The fourth is a shared obituary page. Number 4 is about an experiment she carried out in 1969 and the 5th is an article that only mentions her, with an incorrect date. There doesn't seem to be any enduring notability about this experiment. Other than these, I haven't been able to find anything about the article's subject in reliable sources. The page creator has created pages about other members of the family and these don't seem to lend to notability either. AussieLegend (✉) 11:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:ARTIST. No sign of notability. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I came here because she is in the artist deletion sort. She fails there, but passes WP:PROF, I believe, because she was the "author of highly cited academic work", namely Bumper Stickers and the Cops, that showed police were more likely to issue citations if they did not like the bumper sticker of the people they had pulled over. It is mentioned a lot in Google books, e.g.:

Discourse Comprehension: Essays in Honor of Walter Kintsch by Charles A. Weaver, III, ‎Suzanne Mannes, ‎C. Randy Fletcher - 2012
Social psychology and the study of deviant behavior, by Andrew John Pavlos, University Press of America, 1979
Blacks and Bureaucracy: Readings in the Problems and Politics of Change, by Virginia B. Ermer, John Hadley Strange

Crowell, Jan 1, 1972

Politics and the legal process, by James Eisenstein Harper & Row Limited, 1973
The enemy in the streets: police malpractice in America, by Ed Cray - 1972
The basic processes of criminal justice by James Leray LeGrande - 1973
Contemporary social psychology: representative readings by Thomas Blass - 1976
The evaluation enterprise by William R. Meyers - 1981

From what I could tell form Google books, the above are in-depth mentions. There are many other mentions as citations.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reviewers: Please take a look at the new information presented by

ThatMontrealIP. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on the evidence that ThatMontrealIP discovered. The subject of this article does not fit into neat disciplinary, artistic nor academic categories, but the sum of her work in all of those areas establishes that she has attained notability. Netherzone (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ThatMontrealIP's research. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Bumper Stickers article has about 70 citations on Google Scholar. Calling that "widely referenced" is a bit of an exaggeration. Her citation record and academic record otherwise looks to be a long way from meeting WP:NPROF. WP:NAUTHOR is possible, but looks to be unlikely. I found one review in a RS for the 1993 book, now added to the article. (It looks like there's another review of the same book by H Gorchos, but I couldn't find publication info for it.) But the other two books are self-published, and I didn't find reviews. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her widely cited bumper sticker campaign, and her WP:PROF status. Additionally ThatMontrealIP has dug a bit deeper- bravo. Wm335td (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards Keep based on the evidences of ThatMontrealIP. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2020 (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.