Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Esterson

:{{la|Allen Esterson}} ([{{fullurl:PageName|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Esterson}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Subject fails WP:PROF, has written one book, cited 32 times in [http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=Allen+Esterson&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search Google Scholar] (GS h-index = 3). This BLP was created by a user who has a running conflict (both on and off wiki) with User:Esterson (AN/I thread). The subject of the biography has expressed the wish that the article be deleted and claims to fail WP:N and WP:PROF "the fact remains that I have never had an academic position, have very few publications to my name, and have virtually no public profile (nor eminence)" (here).. I could imagine that someone might argue that his [http://www.esterson.org web site] and that his work has been cited at all by Freud scholars amounts to notability, but I think these clearly fail WP:PROF based on my past experiences at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Crusio (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• comment it will probably be helpful for American editors to know that "colleges" in the UK are secondary educational institutions -- the last two years of high school, basically -- rather than universities. I'm going to give this nomination some more attention tomorrow; for the moment, I've removed a large amount of tedious and unencyclopedic detail. I have also placed a COI warning for this article on User:Skoojal's talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Judging by the full version, and some extensive searching, I think that by our usual standard for WP:PROF, there does not seem to be sufficient published work for notability as a researcher. With regard to general public notability, I don't see it either. Writing a long comment about a PBS program does not make one notable, even if it gets printed--no matter how true it may be. Maric's role in Einstein's work is an important scientific controversy, but his role in it is very minor. The significant contributions to that historical inquiry have been made by others. And certainly so in relation to Freud's theories. That a subject doesn't want an article is in my view not a strong reason for deletion. But in this case the subject seems correct that he isn't notable. Considering the information given above, I suggest a Rapid delete, and a courtesy blanking of the Afd DGG (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per others above Slrubenstein | Talk 22:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for several reasons, including lack of reliable independent sources, borderline attack and the honouring of subject preference in marginal WP:BLPs. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 24 September 2008 (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.