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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Cines[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP no independent references Rathfelder (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is a full professor who has authored a number of very highly cited papers, passing WP:PROF#C1. I suspect at least some of the awards listed on his faculty page would pass WP:PROF#C2 as well. As has been pointed out to you (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Epstein, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy E. Dunlap, etc.), citations to independent sources are neither a requirement for BLPs or a valid reason for deletion. – Joe (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Five of his publications have over 1000 citations in Google Scholar, an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1 even in a high-citation field. The nomination statement refers to a different notability criterion than the one that is most relevant to this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the requirements for WP:PROF. There are those who don't think WP:PROF should be an accepted guideline, but the giodeline has consistently stood up to challenges for over a decade now. It does not make sense to be objecting to the instances where it most obviously shows its value. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:34, 17 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.