Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Donaldson


 * 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 speedy keep. Per WP:CSK, absence of a deletion rationale as nominator has withdrawn their rationale Eddie891 Talk Work 16:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Stewart Donaldson

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG. How was this written in the good ol' days? Was it better or unsourced? Sarrail (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Withdrawn by nominator" Lots of citations found via quick Google search. Article may be expanded. Sarrail  (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions.  Sarrail  (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. — hueman1 ( talk  •  contributions ) 06:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix. Nomination fails to even consider the appropriate notability criteria (WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR). The article was lobotomized last July by User:SovalValtos without any attempt to improve it instead, after several earlier attempts to source it were reverted, but a single click on his faculty profile from the external links shows him to be Distinguished University Professor at Claremont Graduate University (WP:PROF), former president of the American Evaluation Association (maybe #C6), and winner of multiple awards and fellowships some of which might contribute to #C2 or #C3. His Google Scholar profile shows heavy citations, enough for #C1 even in a high-citation field. And the pre-lobotomized version lists many book publications, which are not enough for notability in themselves, but could lead to WP:AUTHOR notability if there are multiple published reviews of them; I found, , , , and on a quick search, not quite enough by themselves (because most of these are for edited volumes) but a good start. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep WP:SKCRIT Message to the nominator please do a thorough WP:BEFORE. So we do not end up these obvious keeps Articles for deletion/Life-cycle cost analysis Lightburst (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2022 (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.