Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hendricks


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Michael Hendricks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not surprisingly, this is a clear WP:GNG fail. That's why we have WP:NPROF, but I'm not seeing that here either. Author claimed on talk that he met NPROF by being a fellow of the APA, which to me is clearly nonsense. Claims also that he met the requirements for significant work by being a co-author (among many) of three "widely cited" works, which is at least debatable. So please convince me I'm wrong and I'll gladly withdraw this. John from Idegon (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 00:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The American Psychological Association called Hendricks "An internationally recognized expert in theoretical, evaluative and treatment concerns for transgender and other gender nonconforming individuals, " when it gave him one its highest honors.. Hendricks has been interviewed by WJLA . He has been frequently interviewed for other news stories and has been recognized as one of the foremost scholars in his sub-discipline.--TM 01:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep In addition to the above, being a Fellow of the American Psychological Association is a mark of special distinction and passes WP:PROF. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was canvassed on my talk page by but I would have found this through watchlisting academic deletions in any case. In his talk page message, Thsmi002 asked me whether Fellow of the APA is enough for WP:PROF#C3. I'm a little skeptical, because it's not the highest distinction of the APA; that would be a different level, "distinguished fellow", and the APA's description page states that "excellence, not mere competence, is the hallmark of an APA Distinguished Fellow". That suggests to me that the lower fellow level rewards "mere competence" and is therefore not enough. The reason I think this should be a keep anyway is WP:PROF. His papers (found by searching Google Scholar for author:Michael-L-Hendricks) have citation counts 365, 185, 116, ... with an h-index of 12. To me that's clearly above the threshold of notability (if still somewhat close to it). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's tricky, but there are at least two major organizations that refer to themselves as the APA. I know that the American Psychiatric Association has Distinguished Fellows, but I can’t find such a distinction for the APA that is relevant here, which would be the American Psychological Association. I do note that the American Psychological Association lists >4200 people in its fellows database. EricEnfermero (Talk) 13:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I was just following the link that Thsmi002 gave me for the fellowship but I didn't check whether it was for the correct org. (See also: the two different AAAS organizations, whose fellows are fortunately both notable.) —David Eppstein (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The APA which matters here says, "Fellow status is an honor bestowed upon APA members who have shown evidence of unusual and outstanding contributions or performance in the field of psychology. Fellow status requires that a person's work has had a national impact on the field of psychology beyond a local, state or regional level." They don't appear to have a higher tier of fellowship. They do appear to have a sizable number of Fellows, but they also have over 115,000 members. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: a bit on the weak side, but - combined (based on reception & fellowship) - indicators of notability are there. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: Meets WP:PROF and WP:PROF. I wrote the page after seeing that Hendricks is a Fellow of the APA and reviewing his citation counts. Thsmi002 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2018 (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.