- 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
WP:SNOW keep. There is no reasonable possibility that a consensus to delete will arise at this point.
BD2412
T
16:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Gunilla Gerland
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Gunilla Gerland ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Neither she nor her work appears to have received any coverage in mainstream media. The article cites a few books which mention her; however, none of these are about her. Most seem to make only a solitary reference to her and would fall under the category of trivial mention ( WP:TRIVIAL), which can't be used to establish notability. The article cites a review of her book in the Times Higher Education Supplement, but this one review does not meet the threshold for "significant critical attention." Her books haven't received any awards or been included in any bestseller lists. The article cites four examples of her work being cited, but this isn't enough to prove her work is "widely cited." Furthermore, this article is short and contains little information about the subject; due to the aforementioned lack of secondary sources, I don't believe this problem can be remedied without relying almost exclusively on primary sources. JMB1980 ( talk) 00:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Sweden. Shellwood ( talk) 01:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Based on my initial search of the Wikipedia Library and additions to the article, there appears to at least be support for
WP:BASIC notability - there is a profile from
The Guardian added and additional book reviews; the in-depth attention from scholarly sources, including for her autobiography, seems to add support for notability, because per
WP:AUTHOR, she appears to be
regarded as an important figure
. Beccaynr ( talk) 03:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC) And then I began to search GBooks, and there appears to be a lot of sources and information that can be added to this article. Beccaynr ( talk) 05:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC) - Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr ( talk) 04:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment While the article has been improved quite a bit, there is still a lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. Many of the citations could be considered "capsule reviews" or trivial mentions
WP:TRIVIAL as they contain little to no substantive and detailed information about the subject of this article. It should also be noted that many of the sources cited were published by Jessica Kingsley Publishers, which is associated with the subject of this article; they are not independent of each other or the subject of this article and, therefore, can't be used to establish notability (
WP:SIGCOV). There isn't sufficient evidence to prove she is "regarded as an important figure." I would posit the criteria for
WP:GNG or
WP:AUTHOR still hasn't been met.
JMB1980 (
talk)
07:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Based on the sources in the article at the time of your comment (while granting for the sake of this comment, without condoning, the idea that sharing a publisher deprives a source of independence), many of the sources are not published by Jessica Kingsley Publishers, e.g.
Not published by Jessica Kingsley Publishers
|
|---|
|
- From my view, these sources, as well as
others that appear to be available, at minimum support
WP:BASIC notability, which includes
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability
and in fn7,Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail.
From my view, per the notability guidelines, the secondary context, synthesis, and commentary in the various sources help support notability. It does not appear to be trivial when her work is the subject of scholarly study and analysis, and the sustained coverage of her and her work helps show how she is important to the field of study in a variety of ways. Beccaynr ( talk) 16:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)- The problem is that many of these are trivial mentions and "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." This cited source, for example, says only this about:
- "Although autistic children are more resistant to this phenomenon, the pressure to conform is so strong it still ends up influencing their behaviour, as illustrated by the case of Gunilla Gerland. As a girl, this Swedish woman did not want to wear rings or bracelets because she hated the way metal felt on her skin. Observing that adults could not fathom that a little girl might not like these things, she resigned herself to getting gifts of jewellery, and even learned to thank the giver, before stashing the object away in a box at the earliest opportunity."
- This would qualify as a "mention in passing," not significant coverage, and "does not discuss the subject in detail." Furthermore, this source contains no usable information for an encyclopedia entry. This is representative of most sources cited in this article which only mention the subject is passing and provide little to no substantial information.
JMB1980 (
talk)
17:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- You referenced
a section from an essay that includes,
Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers [...] are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability and are useful to write Reception sections [...]; common sense and editorial judgement should be used to reach a consensus about the sources available
, which is similar to what I am trying to convey about the significance of secondary context, synthesis, commentary, and analysis that accompanies discussion of Gerland and her work, which makes it nontrivial and therefore supportive of her notability. Also, the Scroll.in source is not representative of the scholarly sources and the critical attention from book reviews. It is also unclear how you have managed to assess 'most sources cited in this article' to support such a broad statement. Beccaynr ( talk) 18:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)- Three sentences about her not liking jewelry in an article that isn't about her is not "critical commentary," it's "being mentioned in a source whose primary purpose is to cover an entirely different subject." This is indeed trivial, not significant, coverage. This applies to many of the sources cited; more examples of trivial coverage include Twin: A Memoir and I Am Special. Gerland's name appears few times in these sources, and each time it's in a list of people who write about autism. These sources provide no substantial or detailed information about her. These are passing mentions, not significant coverage or commentary. JMB1980 ( talk) 22:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- You referenced
a section from an essay that includes,
- From my view, these sources, as well as
others that appear to be available, at minimum support
WP:BASIC notability, which includes
- Very strong keep As above. J 1982 ( talk) 10:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Certainly meets the criteria for general notability.-- Ipigott ( talk) 12:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per
WP:NAUTHOR. Looking at the sources helpfully organized by Beccaynr, through the lens of
WP:NBOOK, I see an NBOOK pass for A Real Person with Forder and Lanham as the 2 sources, and a pass for Secrets to Success with Rose and Jones as the 2. For Finding Out I only spot Lavere;
Beccaynr, would you be able to point out a second review for Finding Out? Two NBOOK passes can be enough for NAUTHOR but it would be nice to have three.
~ L 🌸 (
talk)
07:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- When I started looking for more sources, I found a book chapter that covers Gerland, her autobiography, and study of her autobiography, and refers to her as "one of the pioneers of autistic participation in research on autism". (Anne Stenning (June 2020). "Understanding empathy through a study of autistic life writing". In Rosqvist, HB; Chown, N; Stenning, A (eds.).
Neurodiversity Studies: A New Critical Paradigm. London: Routledge. Retrieved 14 March 2022.) This appears to be
WP:SIGCOV, e.g.
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material
, and I think it helps confirm WP:GNG notability and also supports the importance of her autobiography for an WP:AUTHOR#1 pass. So while I have not yet found more book reviews for other books, I also agree with your analysis of WP:AUTHOR#3, but I am finding research a bit challenging due to the attention her autobiography has received. Beccaynr ( talk) 15:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- When I started looking for more sources, I found a book chapter that covers Gerland, her autobiography, and study of her autobiography, and refers to her as "one of the pioneers of autistic participation in research on autism". (Anne Stenning (June 2020). "Understanding empathy through a study of autistic life writing". In Rosqvist, HB; Chown, N; Stenning, A (eds.).
Neurodiversity Studies: A New Critical Paradigm. London: Routledge. Retrieved 14 March 2022.) This appears to be
WP:SIGCOV, e.g.
- Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR. Inspect61 ( talk) 03:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per above, as article clearly meets GNG and NAuthor, and a note that this nominator has made several AfDs, all of which are of a similar tone; lack of checking and due diligence, primarily targeting biographies on the same general topic — authors with connections to autism. Montanabw (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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
WP:SNOW keep. There is no reasonable possibility that a consensus to delete will arise at this point.
BD2412
T
16:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Gunilla Gerland
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Gunilla Gerland ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Neither she nor her work appears to have received any coverage in mainstream media. The article cites a few books which mention her; however, none of these are about her. Most seem to make only a solitary reference to her and would fall under the category of trivial mention ( WP:TRIVIAL), which can't be used to establish notability. The article cites a review of her book in the Times Higher Education Supplement, but this one review does not meet the threshold for "significant critical attention." Her books haven't received any awards or been included in any bestseller lists. The article cites four examples of her work being cited, but this isn't enough to prove her work is "widely cited." Furthermore, this article is short and contains little information about the subject; due to the aforementioned lack of secondary sources, I don't believe this problem can be remedied without relying almost exclusively on primary sources. JMB1980 ( talk) 00:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Sweden. Shellwood ( talk) 01:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Based on my initial search of the Wikipedia Library and additions to the article, there appears to at least be support for
WP:BASIC notability - there is a profile from
The Guardian added and additional book reviews; the in-depth attention from scholarly sources, including for her autobiography, seems to add support for notability, because per
WP:AUTHOR, she appears to be
regarded as an important figure
. Beccaynr ( talk) 03:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC) And then I began to search GBooks, and there appears to be a lot of sources and information that can be added to this article. Beccaynr ( talk) 05:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC) - Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr ( talk) 04:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment While the article has been improved quite a bit, there is still a lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. Many of the citations could be considered "capsule reviews" or trivial mentions
WP:TRIVIAL as they contain little to no substantive and detailed information about the subject of this article. It should also be noted that many of the sources cited were published by Jessica Kingsley Publishers, which is associated with the subject of this article; they are not independent of each other or the subject of this article and, therefore, can't be used to establish notability (
WP:SIGCOV). There isn't sufficient evidence to prove she is "regarded as an important figure." I would posit the criteria for
WP:GNG or
WP:AUTHOR still hasn't been met.
JMB1980 (
talk)
07:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Based on the sources in the article at the time of your comment (while granting for the sake of this comment, without condoning, the idea that sharing a publisher deprives a source of independence), many of the sources are not published by Jessica Kingsley Publishers, e.g.
Not published by Jessica Kingsley Publishers
|
|---|
|
- From my view, these sources, as well as
others that appear to be available, at minimum support
WP:BASIC notability, which includes
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability
and in fn7,Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail.
From my view, per the notability guidelines, the secondary context, synthesis, and commentary in the various sources help support notability. It does not appear to be trivial when her work is the subject of scholarly study and analysis, and the sustained coverage of her and her work helps show how she is important to the field of study in a variety of ways. Beccaynr ( talk) 16:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)- The problem is that many of these are trivial mentions and "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." This cited source, for example, says only this about:
- "Although autistic children are more resistant to this phenomenon, the pressure to conform is so strong it still ends up influencing their behaviour, as illustrated by the case of Gunilla Gerland. As a girl, this Swedish woman did not want to wear rings or bracelets because she hated the way metal felt on her skin. Observing that adults could not fathom that a little girl might not like these things, she resigned herself to getting gifts of jewellery, and even learned to thank the giver, before stashing the object away in a box at the earliest opportunity."
- This would qualify as a "mention in passing," not significant coverage, and "does not discuss the subject in detail." Furthermore, this source contains no usable information for an encyclopedia entry. This is representative of most sources cited in this article which only mention the subject is passing and provide little to no substantial information.
JMB1980 (
talk)
17:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- You referenced
a section from an essay that includes,
Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers [...] are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability and are useful to write Reception sections [...]; common sense and editorial judgement should be used to reach a consensus about the sources available
, which is similar to what I am trying to convey about the significance of secondary context, synthesis, commentary, and analysis that accompanies discussion of Gerland and her work, which makes it nontrivial and therefore supportive of her notability. Also, the Scroll.in source is not representative of the scholarly sources and the critical attention from book reviews. It is also unclear how you have managed to assess 'most sources cited in this article' to support such a broad statement. Beccaynr ( talk) 18:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)- Three sentences about her not liking jewelry in an article that isn't about her is not "critical commentary," it's "being mentioned in a source whose primary purpose is to cover an entirely different subject." This is indeed trivial, not significant, coverage. This applies to many of the sources cited; more examples of trivial coverage include Twin: A Memoir and I Am Special. Gerland's name appears few times in these sources, and each time it's in a list of people who write about autism. These sources provide no substantial or detailed information about her. These are passing mentions, not significant coverage or commentary. JMB1980 ( talk) 22:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- You referenced
a section from an essay that includes,
- From my view, these sources, as well as
others that appear to be available, at minimum support
WP:BASIC notability, which includes
- Very strong keep As above. J 1982 ( talk) 10:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Certainly meets the criteria for general notability.-- Ipigott ( talk) 12:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per
WP:NAUTHOR. Looking at the sources helpfully organized by Beccaynr, through the lens of
WP:NBOOK, I see an NBOOK pass for A Real Person with Forder and Lanham as the 2 sources, and a pass for Secrets to Success with Rose and Jones as the 2. For Finding Out I only spot Lavere;
Beccaynr, would you be able to point out a second review for Finding Out? Two NBOOK passes can be enough for NAUTHOR but it would be nice to have three.
~ L 🌸 (
talk)
07:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- When I started looking for more sources, I found a book chapter that covers Gerland, her autobiography, and study of her autobiography, and refers to her as "one of the pioneers of autistic participation in research on autism". (Anne Stenning (June 2020). "Understanding empathy through a study of autistic life writing". In Rosqvist, HB; Chown, N; Stenning, A (eds.).
Neurodiversity Studies: A New Critical Paradigm. London: Routledge. Retrieved 14 March 2022.) This appears to be
WP:SIGCOV, e.g.
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material
, and I think it helps confirm WP:GNG notability and also supports the importance of her autobiography for an WP:AUTHOR#1 pass. So while I have not yet found more book reviews for other books, I also agree with your analysis of WP:AUTHOR#3, but I am finding research a bit challenging due to the attention her autobiography has received. Beccaynr ( talk) 15:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- When I started looking for more sources, I found a book chapter that covers Gerland, her autobiography, and study of her autobiography, and refers to her as "one of the pioneers of autistic participation in research on autism". (Anne Stenning (June 2020). "Understanding empathy through a study of autistic life writing". In Rosqvist, HB; Chown, N; Stenning, A (eds.).
Neurodiversity Studies: A New Critical Paradigm. London: Routledge. Retrieved 14 March 2022.) This appears to be
WP:SIGCOV, e.g.
- Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR. Inspect61 ( talk) 03:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per above, as article clearly meets GNG and NAuthor, and a note that this nominator has made several AfDs, all of which are of a similar tone; lack of checking and due diligence, primarily targeting biographies on the same general topic — authors with connections to autism. Montanabw (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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.