Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moshe Bar (neuroscientist)


 * 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) Tim Song (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Moshe Bar (neuroscientist)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Autobiog - author has blanked their user page to hide the fact after COI was placed on page. Alastair Rae (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Question Is "autobiog" a criterion for deletion? Which number? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Scopus shows 54 publications, many in the very top tier of journals like Nature and PNAS,  with the highest citation counts 167, 135, 131, 125, 111. Even in the neurosciences, where people often publish and cite many papers, this is a notable enough record to establish him as an authority in his field. The article does need considerable rewriting--and I'm going to check for copyvio & rewrite  as necessary. Associate professors are not always notable. He is. COI is irrelevant to notability.    DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Top GS cites 190, 188, 179, 106... ample for WP:prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete. As per WP:YOURSELF, if he was notable somebody else should write him up. The post hoc attempt to conceal the fact that it is autobiographical is telling. --Alastair Rae (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearcut in my opinion, argument raised succinctly above by DGG holds -- Samir 09:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged, but the fact that they are autobiographical is not, in and of itself, a reason for deletion. Lack of notability is.--Eric Yurken (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 *  Strong keep  Delete - he's not a cartoon, doesn't belong. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. According to his vita he is a fellow of the American Psychological Society. I'm not sure whether that is enough to pass WP:PROF #3 but it may well be. In any case Xxanthippe has provided strong evidence of passing WP:PROF #1. Probably best just to ignore the pointy sarcasm of IP69.226.103.13 above. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2009 (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.