Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald R. Fieve


 * 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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Euryalus (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Ronald R. Fieve

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

BLP with no evidence of in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What an absurd way to go about things. Please clarify, when you say no evidence, you mean none yet provided to the article, or you actually mean you've searched yourself and not found anything? FinalAccount (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean someone had it stupdily tagged for having no sources which confused the hell out of things and as soon as that's sorted you slap this on it. It doesn't take long to find stuff. The existing source in the article has an independently written summary of his career. Also e.g. FinalAccount (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that those links aren't working very well for me. I see four passing mentions, a "membership required" message, and six passing mentions. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah interesting. Nafsadh - did you read the psychiatric times review before voting delete? And 'passing mentions' is misleading since the Healy book goes into his background and details his study of lithium to America?? FinalAccount (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails May pass WP:BIO. --  nafSadh did say 23:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please explain why you wrongly tagged the article as no refs, added a confusing comment on my talk page saying it lacked references and to add one, and failed to reply about it, and why you are now voting to delete with no explanation or comment on the existing or additional sources listed above. If you don't reply to this I will raise a complaint about your user conduct. FinalAccount (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally on wikipedia people aren't required to explain why they made mistakes, merely keep them below acceptable levels. When !voting at AfD answering specific points is not required, only a policy-based argument behind the !vote. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A policy-based argument not a policy-referencing vote. And sorry but fly-by confusingly wrong taggings ignoring questions is not good WP practice. FinalAccount (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I PRODed because it had no reliable at that point. Can't see one either now; not any of the three citations are reliable, one being primary, another non-verifiable (can't access) and another unclear. The notice on your talk is automatically posted when I PRODed; you are supposed to ask me on my talk, as I am not watching your talk. Also you are supposed to be nice to other editors . --  nafSadh did say 13:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a rational, policy-based or accurate comment on the Healy book or psychiatric times review, and I note user Nafsadh voted delete without having even been able to look at it. FinalAccount (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A very important feature of notability is that, one should be able to look into sources about it. A source if not freely accessible, it should however be publicly accessible and at least one other editor should vouch for it. Also, even if the source is verified, it is not enough for notability. Academicians might have thousands of citations and mentions in books, even in famous ones -- that do not make them notable always. --  nafSadh did say 14:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant pontificating as multiple sources with significant coverage is sufficient. If you can't access that psychiatric times article that's your problem not mine. FinalAccount (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, it is your problem; because anyone can come up with dead or inaccessible link and claim whatever he will! At least one other editor shall be able to verify.
 * There are some more sources. Thanks for them. Let me check if those changes my vote. --  nafSadh did say 17:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No thanks coming from you are accepted - my work on the article has nothing to do with your tagging deletion efforts - you hindered what I was working towards anyway. And you are a policy joke, you shouldn't have voted delete before anyone has verified or not, and it isn't even inaccessible either directly or via Google cache! FinalAccount (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As long as I evaluate notability fails I can express that. This article have been improved in many aspects, since I PRODed and voted on AfD. Often it is a good idea to start an article in userspace or through AfC until that article is mature enough to establish notability. YOUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS OTHER EDITORS IS NOT NICE. Although you are not maintaining politeness, one of five foundations of Wikipedia, I'd suggest you to rewrite the lede. I am not bound to follow your dictation, nor do I have to explain each of my actions; my judgements were based on evidence placed added with further investigation. Despite you are sticking into an argument about only one reference, my evaluation is from all of them. So, dear, can you please STOP attacking me and help improving Wikipedia? --  nafSadh did say 20:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've added a handful of references, each with >100 cites according to google scholar. I've also dug up this but still failing WP:BIO. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Good article list added but why the denial - multiple secondary sources with significant coverage establishes notability on the main guideline and he clearly passes Notability (academics) due to introducing/developing key DSM concepts such as bipolar II and rapid cycling, and apparently was instrumental in scientifically (seminal paper among those you've added), clinically (first lithium clinic) and popularly (through two bestsellers) establishing the use of Lithium in America. FinalAccount (talk) 09:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are some words there I'm not seeing in the reliable sources, including "seminal" and "bestseller". Stuartyeates (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Withdrawing nomination based on worldcat edition stats, 6 editions of moodswings from a mainstream publisher (William Morrow and Company) over twenty years. FinalAccount I suggest that you add a Authority Control template and a bulleted list of editions of his books with year, publisher and ISBN.  Stuartyeates (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Final comment: I don't care what either of you think (mainly referring to Nafsadh's latest off-topic self-serving comment), can someone just close this deletion process attacking my hard work. FinalAccount (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Technically, deletion discussions can be closed as withdrawn only when there are no remaining delete opinions. So closing it early for that reason should wait on 's response to the withdrawal. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Response. Can't confirm keep. --  nafSadh did say 03:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2014 (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.