Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Nigro Sansonese


 * 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. Keeper |  76  15:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

J. Nigro Sansonese

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Unsourced BLP. Notability is not clear. -- Patchy1   07:47, 25 February 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 February 25.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  10:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Not sure of notability just yet, Keep or redirect to The Body of Myth. I found a review of his book The Body of Myth here and another in the American Journal of Psychiatry seen in this table of contents. He was also quoted in this book, as well as this one and this one. J04n(talk page) 00:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the American Journal of Psychiatry review of The Body of Myth, it is password protected though. For those without access, it is a 1,335 word review in a peer-reviewed medical journal with an impact factor of 12.539. J04n(talk page) 11:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * An observation - Given how readily bio articles are created and our desire for adequate referencing of articles (especially bio articles) we should not have to scratch around trying to dig up refs. Should place the onus on the article creator to provide adequate refs? (well we do with {BLPPROD}) So haven't we got enough to do already? (and isn't articles enough? ) We do waste a lot of time. Take this article: it was PRODed, REFUNDed and now AFDed! Editors are now scurrying around trying to find refs (an atheistic blessing on them!). Is this how it should work? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Keep as meeting the notability criteria for WP:AUTHOR on the basis of the reviews. I hope Alan above does not mean to imply that it is useless to improve articles. Preferences vary--I personally find it very useful to improve inadequate work, because it might teach the editor how to do it. If we limited participation here to those who can  write finished articles at the first draft, our contents would be pathetically incomplete.    DGG (at NYPL) 21:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per DGG. I think this can be fixed. Bearian (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet WP:AUTHOR. The Yoga Journal review is the only one, and the mentions in other books cited are passing ones. The subject's work does not have the significance required by the guideline.  Mini  apolis  23:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What about the review in American Journal of Psychiatry? It is much more expansive than the one in the Yoga Journal. J04n(talk page) 01:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I can't access it, it sounds like it belongs in the article; one of my pet peeves at AfD is sources which are cited here when they should be in the article. However, I'm not convinced that this one book is influential enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. All the best,  Mini  apolis  03:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources may be few, but they seem reliable, and his works seem notable enough. In my personal opinion, the page could use more information, but there is time for that to be provided later. Kaoskitteh (talk) 17:17, 7 March 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.