Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Llewelyn Webb


 * 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.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thomas Llewelyn Webb

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Academic with a string of publications, but no substance to the article and nothing to say why he is notable - which he might be, but I am not familiar enough with social psychology to say. Rathfelder (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Snow keep. The article needs serious cleanup, but he has three publications with over 1000 citations each, which I think is a _clear_ pass of WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep because it's much more difficult than it should be to find sourcing for more than just the citation numbers. But I think the article is in better shape now. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete "His research has shown that making backup plans can reduce the likelihood of risky behavior." -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How is that an argument? A lot of worthwhile research consists of demonstrating the obvious. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's the Golgafrinchan solution. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:37, 7 April 2020 (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.