Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Porcerelli


 * 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 delete. Metamagician3000 13:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

John Porcerelli
Article does not assert the subject's importance, and the user who created it has a history of vandalism. RedRollerskate 01:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. He's just another Ph.D. Google pulls up meager results. Aplomado  talk 01:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat 04:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom., as well. ''Em-jay-es  06:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, the awards seems to be genuine. He's a real guy, despite the IP being one used for vandalism... apsa news release. I usually default to delete unless notability is clearly established and sources are supplied... but the guy has awards, and seems to be verifiable (though the article needs to cite its sources). I suppose it comes down to the notablity of his awards and his research. How important is the "Career Research Award" from the American Psychoanalytic Association (an article which does not cite its sources and only links to the website)? Having recently seen several flash animators get keep votes for nothing more than a few hours work with an animation package, a newgrounds account and a couple of fans with wikipedia accounts, I'm reluctant to flush someone with a record of serious clinical work. So how does he really do on Notability (academics), particularly the awards bit. - Motor (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There have got to be 10 billion awards in existence. We got awards in Little League for finishing in last place. Think of every organization that ever existed and every award they had in every department. I've won awards myself, that doesn't make me notable. Aplomado  talk 18:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said above, it depends on the notability of the American Psychoanalytic Association. A career research award from a major reputable organisation would push him into the keep column. I'd just like some more information on them (as I said, their Wikipedia article is unsourced) before I move from a weak keep to a delete. I've seen too many complete non-entities granted a keep on their biographies by a vote-counting admin thanks to a few fans with wikipedia accounts and enough Wiki-knowledge to say "passes WP:BIO" without explaining why. The guy isn't a fraud and has, what seems to be a solid academic record (at least)... I'd like to give him a chance first. That's all. - Motor (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Motor is making some good points. I'm not ready to withdraw the nomination yet, but he has made me think.  I've got some chores to finish this afternoon, but once I'm done I'll do some diggin on the American Psychoanalyic Association and its notability (or lack thereof).  RedRollerskate 19:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Xyra  e  l  T 14:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Basically just about average notability for a professor.  I tend to be sympathetic to documenting academics, but this is a hair shy of general notability.  FWIW, I recognize that some less notable bios with more of a "web" focus get kept (and shouldn't), but AfD isn't a quid pro quo, nor is the process entirely logically consistent.  LotLE × talk  05:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that it was a quid pro quo. Just that he has verifiable info and an actual career rather than just a few fans. Until I find some more information on a "career research award" he received I'm staying on a weak keep. If the organisation turns out not to be all that notable, I'll change my vote to delete. - Motor (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, the American Psychoanalytic Association is definitely highly notable. But these types of awards from notable professional organizations are pretty minor.  If Porcerelli had given an APA keynote or something, I'd vote keep on that alone.  And I quite agree that it's foolish to keep those articles that just amount to a small, cultish fanbase... I'm sure Procerelli is a perfectly fine therapist and teacher, who in the end has done more of significance than someone who made a few web pages.  But still shy of the "above average contribution to his field" type test.  LotLE × talk  07:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, reads like a CV --Astrokey 44 15:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO. --Bill (who is cool!) 03:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails to meet the requirements for WP:BIO.--Auger Martel 07:56, 17 June 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.