Deletion of Denise Donnelly

Comment: per DGG. The article is well sourced and meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: GS h-index of 11 is insufficient to pass rof#C1 in the hot field of pop-sociology. Too early
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: per  and . The scholar search linked above shows several papers with scores of citations, which to me meets NACADEMICS #1. The existence of articles such as http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/when-sex-leaves-the-marriage/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 this leads me to believe that she meets NACADEMICS #7 as well. Remember that |AfD is not cleanup; if the article gives overcoverage to involuntary celibacy, then just fix it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BASIC||WP:NACADEMICS||WP:NOTCLEANUP)

Comment: I have to agree with other editors that the work done by the subject is not "Fringe". The problem is that notability according to rof is not yet achieved: too early
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: Like Tarc, I https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Celibacy&diff=609120138&oldid=609103533#Involuntary_celibacy_topic_now_moved_to_and_covered_at_Denise_Donnelly_article also suggested that the Denise Donnelly article is the Involuntary celibacy article in disguise. I'm not 100% sure if Denise Donnelly passes as otable; my first instinct on that matter is to state that she does not, per Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I'm interested to see what other Wikipedia editors have to state on the matter
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: We've already determined that involuntary celibacy is already non-notable as a separate topic, from which it seems clear that it's not something with sufficient notability for its creator to inherit notability from it. And most of the sources currently listed in this article see to be more about involuntary celibacy than they are about Donnelly's contribution to its study, so I think the fact that they were already judged not enough for notability for that topic should be pretty persuasive here. Which is to say, if we want to argue that she's notable via , then I'm persuaded by the nomination argument that this is an end-run around a previous AfD and that the GNG argument doesn't work. More, I think that the attempts to re-create that article here should be scaled back so that we have an article that's actually about the subject of its title. But if that were done, we'd only have notability through  to fall back on, and the case for that seems equally weak
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PROF)

Comment: GS h-index of 11 is insufficient to pass rof#C1 per
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: because although the subject is clearly important in her field, the guidelines for  etc. are just indications of who is ''likely'' to be notable: the only real test is, has this person been the primary focus of non-trivial independent sources? And the answer here appears to be: no. All the sources discuss her work, for sure, but they reference her without being biographical. A hundred namechecks do not establish notability any better than one does
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: per DGG.  This topic appears to pass both  and  as this person and their theory has received non-trivial coverage from reliable sources as well has been cited in multiple academic publications.  Just because this person advocates a fringe theory that you or many people might disagree with, that doesn't negate our own guidelines
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NACADEMICS)