- 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 speedy keep. nom withdraw (non-admin closure) Dysklyver 23:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Arnold Epstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
BLP without external references Rathfelder (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Assuming by "external references" you mean sources independent of the subject, as far as I'm aware there's no requirement that all BLPs include them. The references in the article are reliable sources for the information they're supporting, and a Google Scholar search turns up several thousand more independent sources that could be used to expand this stub. That citation record and, as Tony says, his position at Harvard is a clear pass of WP:PROF. – Joe (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - clearly meets WP:PROF as a named chair (already pointed out by TonyBallioni), and as Captain Raju has pointed out his citation count is more than adequate to pass WP:NSCHOLAR. This isn't even close. Onel5969 TT me 21:42, 5 November 2017 (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.