Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Gartner (psychologist)


 * 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. Nomination has been withdrawn and the only other delete !vote is based purely on the nomination. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

John Gartner (psychologist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Therapist with no notability except anecdotal petition of Trump fit or unfit to office. Not known beside this case Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. Vorbee (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Never heard of WP:BEFORE? He's written two controversial books which received a significant amount of press I added brief details to the article but it could be expanded with criticism of his ideas as well as proper biographical data. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, somehow I missed those books during my search. I did hear about WP:BEFORE. With the added detail, I withdraw the nomination. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I am grateful for the addition of Gartner's books by Colapeninsula. I do regard the initiative to realise the mobilisation of 41.000 mental health professionals in a major society dilemma and violate te Goldwater Rule as a very coureagous and innovating deed. Even more if one is reads the lemma Duty to warn. Nevertheless it is my pleasure to read that Arthistorian1977 is withdrawing his nomination to delete! Haaftjlv (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep
 * Speedy keep on the basis of noms withdrawal &#32;DocumentError (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2018 (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.