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 as snow consensus, nac, SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence D. Smith[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:PROF. Absent more convincing evidence, I couldn't establish that the subject passes any notability criteria. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's certainly more difficult because of the common name, but I think he's fairly highly cited. It looks like B.F. Skinner and behaviorism in American culture is held in >800 libraries and Behaviorism and Logical Positivism has >400 GS citations. I see three more publications with >100 citations that look like they are his (one on Skinner and two on graphs and tables). Behaviorism and Logical Positivism was also reviewed in Isis by Ernest Hilgard, but I can't access the full text. There are also book reviews like this one, but I don't know how significant this journal is. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1. I added three book reviews, so now at least the article has reliable independent sourcing for some of Smith's works. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two reviews of one of his books hardly makes the subject notable under PROF. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I didn't say it did. It's three reviews of two books, not two of one, but it still wouldn't make the subject notable under PROF, and it's probably not enough even under WP:AUTHOR. What makes the subject notable under PROF is the high number of citations to his work. But in order to say something about that work here, we also need a sufficient depth of reliable sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS I just added a fourth review, by B. F. Skinner, one of the subjects of the book, who calls his book "a work of extraordinary scholarship". —David Eppstein (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Four publications with over 100 cites each on GS satisfies WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - as per above editors, citation count satisfies WP:PROF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In agreement with the above editors. Obviously I hold this opinion as the original author of this article. ;) Jcbutler (talk) 17:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks like a snow keep here. I do not understand why the nominator proposed deletion of this BLP when he created and edited a BLP about a person of less achievement and notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 8 July 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.