Deletion of Debra W. Soh

Comment: Science journalist, sexologist, neuroscientist.  Published in Globe and Mail, Playboy, Scientific American, at least a dozen others.  Appearances on several major podcasts: Joe Rogan Experience, Rubin Report, Savage Lovecast, Hidden Brain.  Cited in New York Times articles by David Brooks (commentator)|David Brooks and Bari Weiss.  The article by Weiss alone should pass .  Note how the guideline defines "significant coverage" and compare with how Weiss covered Soh.  Soh is an influential thinker, an influential writer, and in contrast to above, surprisingly more notable than the "average neuroscience grad with a PhD and verified Twitter account".  Keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: passes .  And I do think it meaningful that she has been getting hundreds of hits ever day for for a long while - page is reliably sourced and useful to readers
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: A journalist's notability is measured in terms of the extent to which she is the ''subject'' of |reliable source coverage — but of the twelve footnotes here, six of them represent her speaking or writing about herself or other things; four more are glancing namechecks of her existence in articles whose primary subjects are not her; one is a |primary source directory listing; and the last is her own LinkedIn. A journalist does not become notable by getting interviewed, or by getting cited by other journalists, or by being the bylined author of content about other things — she becomes notable by being the ''subject'' of |reliable source coverage ''about her'', written in the ''third'' person by somebody ''else'', but exactly zero of the sources here represent any such thing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:RS)

Comment: A well known neuroscientist, who is also a journalist and writer. Passes  and . Searching turns up numerous reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:AUTHOR)

Comment: I do not think that this person meets the standards for Notability. I raised this point on the talk page two months ago and it has not been addressed. I believe that the point still holds - "On what grounds does Soh meet ? I don't think a single interview and an off-hand mention in an article about a larger movement meets the criteria 'The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.'. Neither has she produced any significant new concepts, theories or techniques, or a well-known body of work
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:JOURNALIST)

Comment: While a lot of the article's sources are indeed citing the subject's own writings, which do not qualify her for notability, her coverage in ''The New York Times'' by itself passes . A case could also be made that her work has attracted "significant critical attention", per criterion 4(c) of , or that she is "regarded as an important figure" per criterion 1 (although it is debatable ''who'' regards her as important). I hate to delve into , but we have hundreds if not thousands of articles about less-notable journalists, academics and scientists
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:AUTHOR||WP:OTHERSTUFF)