Jacqueline Newman (lawyer) : Has some accomplishments listed at https://nycdivorcelawyer.com/about/ but I'm not convinced those are sufficient for WP:GNG .  A bit more notable than a WP:MILL lawyer though.  Plus nothing I can see to warrant a pass of WP:NPROF .  Kj cheetham ( talk ) 12:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Women ,  and Law .  Kj cheetham ( talk ) 12:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: Found one review of her book [ [21] ] but no much else.  Let'srun ( talk ) 15:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  08:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   The fact the woman is professionally described and extensively cited and quoted as a subject matter expert by the Washington Post on its article “Is the Upper East Side “wife bonus” a real thing? ” probably counts for something.   But that by itself is probably not enough… until you find out that Simon and Schuster printed her book.   So, the subject is not only a subject matter expert by the Bezos Post, but a published author by a premier US editorial.   Shouldn’t we go by the sources, here?  XavierItzm ( talk ) 01:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Washington Post article is good, but need multiple sources like that to meet WP:GNG .  But how does getting a book published count?  For WP:NAUTHOR , I don't think it's sufficiently notable by itself to meet #3 (and if it was I'd suggest an article on the book rather than the author).  Multiple independent reviews are a more typical way to meet that guideline, but I don't think it's the case here at the moment.  - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 19:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are multiple sources that quote her as an expert, e.g. NYT (Oct 10 2023) (one graf); Guardian (Dec 1 2022) (two grafs); CNBC Make It (Sep 8 2023) (five grafs); Business Insider (Dec 12, 2023) (seven-ish grafs).  Beccaynr ( talk ) 20:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Good finds!  I'm getting less convinced this article should be deleted, but not sure they count as significant enough for GNG?  (Also, what is a graf?) - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 20:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A graf is shorthand for 'paragraph' with a nod at the news-style version - I referred to BI as 'seven-ish' because some of the grafs are one line.  From my view, significant coverage from a combination of sources can help us write a fair and balanced article , and while I agree helpful sources are emerging, I am also not sure we have enough to develop encyclopedic content without more independent/reliable/secondary coverage of her career and/or writing.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 20:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah, makes sense!  My current feeling is might be a case of WP:TOOSOON .  - Kj cheetham ( talk ) 20:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - for now, the available sources do not seem sufficient to help us write a fair and balanced article that is not advertising .  There is limited secondary coverage available about her career and legal practice; she has been quoted as a subject matter expert in several high-quality sources (WaPo, NYT, Guardian), and some of lower-quality (CNBC Make It, Business Insider), but has not been the focus of the coverage.  Her book does not appear to be notable according to the WP:NBOOK guideline and one notable book is typically not enough for WP:AUTHOR notability.  The available sources seem to indicate it is WP:TOOSOON to support notability at this time.  Beccaynr ( talk ) 04:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the page created by a sock farm, previously blocked.  I already reported to a check user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Callanecc .  -- 89.151.38.106 ( talk ) 08:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The page should be considered on its own merits, just like I address the anon 89.151.38.106 on his own merits.  XavierItzm ( talk ) 16:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The subject does not meet the criteria for inclusion in her own right.  With more sources, it is possible that the book could meet the criteria, but even that would not meet the criteria now.  Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON ?  Phantom Steve / talk ¦ contribs \ 08:52, 29 January 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete