Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Prescott


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Ifnord 20:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

James W. Prescott
Prescott isn't notable. Nothing in this entry is remarkable or encyclopedic. --Jason Gastrich 04:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 04:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Dripping with notability, nominated probably because his views on sexuality are more tolerant than some. We've finished the atheist series and now we're doing the pro-LGBT series.  Ruby 04:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, bad faith nomination, Prescott is a well-known and notable behavioral psychologist, widely published in his field, and the developer of S-SAD theory. Check his c.v. - WarriorScribe 04:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ruby. Crunch 04:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as above, clear WP:POINT nomination -- keep sleep ing   quit your job!   slack off!  04:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep A poor nomination.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  05:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per all of the above except nominator. -- Dragonfiend 05:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Guettarda 06:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep another bad faith nomination. Anybody checked to see if he just working through the "atheist" category, nominating every entry? Mark K. Bilbo 06:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - looks notable to me. Canley 09:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly notable. --Bduke 11:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - from reading the article, it seems like he's made notable contributions to psychology. --Pierremenard 12:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I see also that his work is repeatedly cited by academics. --Pierremenard 12:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:POINT and Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] AfD? 13:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep CalJW 14:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep notable per article and c.v.. --FloNight 15:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable --kingboyk 17:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. --Censorwolf 17:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - quite notable. Jim62sch 18:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep due to notability and WP:POINT. Latinus 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, bad faith nom, WP:POINT. After 10 or more of these it is time to block nominator for disruption of Wikipedia. MCB 22:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep vindictive nom by Gastrich of a notable person.Blnguyen 23:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as blatant violation of WP:POINT. Also, the nominator of this article has a currently ongoing RFC and his motives are clearly suspect.  Cyde Weys  23:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Jason decided to make this us vs. them, and I choose them. --StuffOfInterest 00:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. These nominations by Gastrich are turning into a joke. Wikipedia is not for editors to act as if they are children who do not get their own way. Arbustoo 01:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. OMG, I just can't believe this. Harvestdancer 02:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Obvious Strong Keep and obvious bad-faith on the part of the nominator. Logophile 14:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination. Blatantly WP:POINT. Stifle 16:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 06:03Z 
 * Keep as bad-faith nomination.  TestPilot [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|48px]] 04:45, 26 January 2006 (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.