Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Eysenck


 * 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The result was   withdrawn. withdrawn (non-admin closure) mabdul 20:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Michael Eysenck

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Although he developed the "theory of the 'hedonic treadmill'" which has it own article - I believe he fails to get the threshold of WP:PROF. mabdul 12:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep According to the Web of Science, MW Eysenck has published over 300 articles, which have been cited over 5000 times, with an h-index of 39. Fifteen of these articles have been cited more than 100 times, with top citation counts of 438, 239, and 170. If one goes to the freely-accessible GScholar, one also finds hundreds of citations for several of his publications. Meets WP:PROF handily. Article could use a lot of re-writing, paring down of the list of publications, etc., but that is not a reason for AfD. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I am bewildered by this nomination. If having been a (UK) professor and head of department is not enough, consider one of his many books "Fundamentals of Psychology". In reviews I see "The sheer breadth and scope of this book is amazing", "Eysenck is one of the best known psychologists in Europe and perhaps the best known A-Level psychology writer", "In my opinion Eysenck is the finest textbook author in the world at this level", "This must be surely one of the most comprehensive psychology textbooks in existence", "Twenty years ago Eysenck revolutionized the teaching of cognitive psychology". Debrett's think he is notable. Thincat (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep. Guillaume2303's point is conclusive. Eysenck's WoS citation counts are: 438, 239, 154, 148, 142, 136,...far past what WP:PROF #1 suggests. I suggest that in such clear-cut cases, AfDs like this should just be closed straightaway so that we can spend valuable time elsewhere. Agricola44 (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Keep - Eysenck was a staple of undergraduate courses, with, as has been noted, dozens of well-cited (and thousand-essayed) papers as well as major textbooks. He has always been a strong and controversial figure, but non-notable? Hardly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2012 (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.