Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold S. Koplewicz


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  TB randley  18:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Harold S. Koplewicz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article violates BLP policy and subject is unencyclopedic Jacksonjones1972 (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 7.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  19:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Subject is not an academic, and is not a member of any faculty. Does not WP:Prof apply to academic notability? "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable."Jacksonjones1972 (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof on GS cites. Inadequate nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC).
 * WP:Prof covers people who publish research and so covers this subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC).


 * Keep Major and controversial research and clinician. There are some serious problems with the article, which has been subject to outrageous whitewashing by those who apparently represent the subject, and insertion of biased attack wording by those who are opposed to the method of medical treatment he promotes. But he is mainstream, tho on only one side of the question. If the article is kept, as it should be, I'm willing to take responsibility for editing it neutrally.  DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously notable, article can (and apparently will) be fixed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. WoS concurs on WP:PROF #1, with the citation list: 296, 127, 107... Agricola44 (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC).
 * Keep per DGG. — Joaquin008  ( talk ) 09:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.