Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren Meck


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Warren Meck

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

Article without relevance and without accredited and reliable references not properly sourced, I do not see its encyclopedic notoriety GiladSeg (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 9.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 20:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychology, California, North Carolina,  and Rhode Island.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  20:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is in poor shape, but this looks like a clear pass of WP:NPROF C1 to me: even in a high citation field, several papers with citation numbers in the thousands is solid.  This is supported by an obituary  from a learned society, another  in an academic journal, and a special issue dedicated to the subject in the same journal . Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. The argument for WP:PROF is strong, and separately the independent obituaries above make a case for WP:GNG notability. (The Duke Today obituary is also usable as an in-depth source but not independent enough for GNG.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. As above, the case for #C1 is strong. Some of the web sources (I did my own search) are very strong, indicating peer recognition. Improve, of course, but AfD was a bit harsh.Ldm1954 (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. per NPROF#1 without any doubt base on citations and h-index of 98 and possibly GNG. --hroest 12:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: @Ldm1954, @hroest This article is not seen as such, nor does it have an encyclopedic development. From my perspective, it seems more like a Curriculum Vitae that only focuses on highlighting the merits, awards and distinctions of Warren Meck, it does not indicate where he was born and what year he studied. Furthermore, the references are not so independent except for references from university institutions where you work and another one that is a blog, they are not independent sources. GiladSeg (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with your points, however this is WP:NOTCLEANUP. This discussion is to determine if the article subject is notable, and if so, then it should stay. You are welcome to improve the article, delete the fluff and the promotional content. Claims that are not supported by sources should be removed. --hroest 14:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep: An article that meets all criteria for WP:NPROF and WP:NACADEMIC. Aside from the lack of WP: BEFORE, the subject here was known for his enormous contributions to "Timing and Time perception" possibly a very basic ideology in Neurosciences. There are also sources that treated him independent, verifiably and significantly per WP:RS and WP:N. This shouldn't be here as I see it as a waste of time because I won't say WP:HEY; the article meets all that before nomination. Secondly, winning or being a Fellow of a notable high research institute is already a criterion for WP:ANYBIO. Per WP:NSCIENTIST, the h-index and series of publication in scholarly journals is enough to qualify a page. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 15:56, 12 May 2024 (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.