Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerry Chamberlain


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Kerry_Chamberlain

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails to meet notability guidelines for academics.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —NZ forever (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. GS cites give h index of 24. This is enough to meet WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Really, is that enough these days? And, does this h index rule vary between the disciplines? Those science types co-author like rabbits, so what would be of major impact in the humanities isn't necessarily the case here. Also, other than this I can't find significant coverage. If we keep it, what is to be done to meet WP:BLP? I've tried to signal that it needs to be fleshed out in the past but there have been no takers. NZ forever (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sufficiently well published and cited academic and he was one of the founding members and is Chairman of the International Society of Critical Health Psychology which is now referenced. (Msrasnw (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. - gadfium  05:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Seems no more notable than any number of University professors. Would change to keep if notability can be adequately established in the article, after 4 and a half years that still has not been done. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as meets WP:AUTHOR criterion 3 (which explicitly includes academics in its remit): "The person has ... played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Evidence: reviews of co-authored book Qualitative Health Psychology: theories and methods in Canadian Psychology], Journal of Health Psychology, European Journal of Public Health, Journal of Advanced Nursing. Presumably the place to debate or consider changing the wording of that particular criterion would be WT:BIO rather than here. Qwfp (talk)
 * Comment. How odd that the deletes are from New Zealand. Looks like a case of Matthew 13:57. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Matthew 13:57 at BibleGateway.com Phil Bridger (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A more likely (and charitable) explanation is: people seeing this because of deletion sorting/NZ and being less familiar with academic deletion debates. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That certainly could be the case. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep. He's had a reasonable amount of attention in the NZ press:    . And he was a keynote speaker at the NZ Psychological Society Annual Meeting 2009. But more convincing to me (because it's less local) are the Google scholar citation counts: he's one of the world's most-cited scholars in melatonin jet-lag research, and also well-cited (though not quite as much as the top researchers) in psychological well-being. That's enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - have to agree with David Eppstein.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2011 (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.