Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mel Krajden


 * 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Mel Krajden

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Nominated for deletion because not sufficiently notable. (Notability) --24.224.177.85 (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: this is not my AFD, I'm good-faith submitting it for the IP who wanted it. tedder (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that the IP who requested it is an WP:SPA whose only contribution to Wikipedia has been this deletion request. Just FYI. --MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions.  —MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC) --MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep He seems notable enough per WP:ACADEMIC; some of his articles at Google Scholar have more than a thousand hits. The article is a stub and needs expansion, but that is not a reason to delete. --MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The article was unsourced; I expanded it and added a couple of references. --MelanieN (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. 4 gnews hits but only would count as a significant mention. . gscholar indicated participation in research but not enough to meet WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. References which confirm his existence are not the same thing as references which confirm his notability — he's not the subject of any of the references that have been added here. Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Phil Bridger (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Strong keep. GS cites are 1590, 1126, 149.... h index = 27. Although this is a highly cited field WP:Prof is clearly satisfied. A time-wasting nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC).
 * And where, pray tell, are the reliable, independent media references about him? Bearcat (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In GS, of course, there are several thousand of them. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC).


 * Delete: Per WP:BIO. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Incorrect. Notability for BLPs/BDPs of academics/researchers is determined by WP:Prof. Closing admin should give careful attention to this matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2010 (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.