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.
DeleteKeepNothing notable, could have simply be prodded. An obituary in the Am J Psychiatry is enough proof of notability for me. --Crusio (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've stripped out some of the ramble, added a ref from the American Journal of Psychiatry, a substantial enough source, which truly ought to be enough to establish notability and verifiability and really think that, though the article is woefully short it satisfies all the criteria necessary for a stub to survive in the spirit of what Wikipedia really is. We state that someone can start and article and others will pick it up and run with it. I have no idea about this field not interest in it, but I have added a ref and unscrambled some text, maybe well, maybe badly, but it is enough for basic survival. And references are not hard to find, so I question the nomination and I question people suggesting it be deleted, simply on the basis of the substantial references for this person available online. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, not my field at all, but adding refs is easy. Marie Nyswander even has an award named after her, a prestigious award. She is well published in technical journals and has published relevant books, too. In view of the immediate change of mind of the first supporter of deletion, might we move to a speedy keep, and let the article take its place here for folk to enhance at will? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep about as notable as it gets. I recommend the use of WP:BEFORE as a preliminary to nominating articles in unfamiliar subjects. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Am J Psych obit and this biography in American National Biography Online make a clear pass of WP:GNG, and the citation numbers mentioned by Xxanthippe also are easily enough for a pass of WP:PROF #1. The ANBO piece cites a New York Times obituary, the existence of which by itself would usually considered enough for a keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/Speedy Keep. Perhaps the nom will agree to let someone close this, given all the above? That would be great, as it would save others the time of reviewing/commenting. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nominator has made no contributions since 5 December, and has been asked (by me) to withdraw this nomination. The nom's talk page is interesting food for thought. Suggest we have a WP:SNOW here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Excellent suggestion! A large fraction of entry-level academics are not (perhaps yet) notable, but such pages are now proliferating, in part at least, because having a WP page can materially help one's tenure/promotion prospects. Like it or not, WP (and numbers like the h-index) are now sufficiently prominent so as to be used in new ways that were not originally intended. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Though, to be fair, I would suggest that this particular nom, who I see is rather new at this but still quite enthusiastic, might benefit (as might we all) from a brush up on AfD criteria, and in particular of wp:before. While I know that what was not being suggested is that all such articles be nominated for deletion, I would hope the nom would engage in this bit of criteria review before any further AfD activity.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is patently obvious that this AfD requires closure early. The article is now no longer a stub and it would take an insane person to consider it for deletion in its current state. Please can we simply close it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtrent (talk • contribs)
Agreed. And that was what I had indicated I hoped for two days ago. But, despite a bevy of delete activity on December 5, the nom has been off Wikipedia since then.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2009 (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.