Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saul V. Levine


 * 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) 20:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Saul V. Levine

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC nor WP:AUTHOR. Tgeairn (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  21:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete His books might be the best basis for notability, but I haven't found significant coverage of them in reviews. Note that there is a Saul Levin in the US who is a notable psychiatrist. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty old guy; these times not much reviews online. Staszek Lem (talk)
 * Keep Does meet WP:ACADEMIC (held a position of named professor) and WP:AUTHOR (8 books), his works are cited in books .Staszek Lem (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Staszek, where is your evidence that he held a named professorship? That would be convincing to me, but if so it's strange that it isn't listed in his UCSD profile. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I got to looking at that in more detail and I can't tell if they are trying to list him as having been the "Stanford Professor of Psychiatry" at U. of Toronto or whether there is just missing punctuation and he was an instructor at Stanford and a professor at U. of Toronto. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like a missing period to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The section appears to be cut/paste from here. However, that page is the only result in a google search for "Stanford Professor of Psychiatry, University of Toronto". I can't tell if is was a named seat and is no longer, or if he was on loan to U. of Toronto from Stanford (which appears to be most likely given other search results). --Tgeairn (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. There's some possibility of notability through his book co-authorship. The University of Toronto Press, at least, is respectable; I haven't heard of some of the others. And his book Radical departures has significant library holdings and at least one published review at . But I couldn't find more on this or the other books, I don't see a lot of citations in Google scholar, and the "named chair" thing above seems to be completely spurious, a misreading of a typo. So my mind could be changed if more evidence turns up, but as it is I don't think there's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * keep under WP:PROF Head of dept and full professor at university of California-- that's not a formal requirement, but no full professor there has ever had their article deleted unless in a field where there's some felling here that it isn;t serious.At least some of the books are important: Radical Departures is in 528 libraries, a/c WorldCat. It has an impt review in Psychology Today'' Vol. 18, no. 8 (Aug. 1984), and presumably other sources. Medline unfortunately does not index book reviews.,so they are not easy to find.    DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a note on one item - being a department head and full professor do not meet the NACADEMICS requirements (see the specific criteria notes for criteria 6). I do not dispute your other statements, and at the same time I don't think that they raise the subject to notability. Thanks --Tgeairn (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have yet to discover a case in the 20th/21st century where the Univ. of California Davis or a comparable major research university gives someone the rank of full professor without their being an authority in their subject, which is the basic requirement of WP:PROF. They're much more qualified that we are to judge such things, because of their collective subject knowledge, and have much more interest in doing it carefully and rightly because the reputation of their university and their ability to recruit other notable faculty depends upon it. Department chairmanships are nowadays normally rotated among the senior faculty--that is, among those who are already notable; there are exceptions here, especially in small departments.  DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep  h-index for PROF C1 is marginal, but a review of a book he cocreated by Kent P. Schwirian in Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 43, No. 3 (Aug., 1981), pp. 753-757, when added to the Psychology Today review DGG describes, can be seen as meeting one of the final clauses of AUTHOR C3, and that's good enough for me. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:13, 4 February 2015 (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.