Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawson Wulsin


 * 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 (non-admin closure), as consensus determined the subject meets the requirements of WP:PROF. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Lawson Wulsin

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable under WP:BIO or WP:PROF guidelines Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —Espresso Addict (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   —Espresso Addict (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Full professor at reputable university; Google Scholar finds a couple of reviews on which he is first author with 227 & 162 citations, 7 other papers with over 20 citations. His popular book, while not a best-seller, appears to have been reviewed in several sources (see publisher/author sites) and has led to some media appearances eg . Appears adequate to meet my interpretation of WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: there are 9 criteria in the guideline page, and I don't see how the article meets any of them.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline" is usually interpreted in terms of citations, as these show how the academic community has built on the body of work. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1; referred to above by Espresso Addict. His book - Treating the aching heart: A guide to depression, stress, and heart disease – is held by 648 libraries worldwide. He is also widely cited.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I really dislike WP:AUTO/WP:COI cases (as this one appears to be: the article was created by User:Wulsinstu), but the subject does appear to satisfy criterion 1 of WP:PROF based on the data in Espresso Addict's post. Nsk92 (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Espresso Addict. The first point alone is enough for notability. The fact his book is widely kept in libraries and the fact his work is widely cited just clinches it. It means that his scientific peers believe his work is valid and worth continuiing upon. - Mgm|(talk) 19:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient for notability, though a fuller article with information on the citations of his major scientific work would show it better. DGG (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2008 (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.