Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David A. Wolfe

: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. joe deckertalk to me 18:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

=[[David A. Wolfe]]=

:{{la|David A. Wolfe}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|David A. Wolfe}})

Not seeing enough third party reliable sources establishing notability; promotes the subject more than anything else. Likely conflict of issue given creator's edits. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Rewrite The few available sources do help to establish notability. COI alone isn't grounds for deletion; with a few more sources and a rewrite for NPOV it could be a perfectly fine article. Several Times (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • :It's the 'a few more sources' that is problematic. I can find lots of places he is quoted, but not articles about the man himself. - MrOllie (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lack of independent biographical sources. - MrOllie (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep on basis of citations in GS but edit article to remove exorbitant spam and puffery. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC).

Rewrite- I am one of the contributors. Thank you for this specific feedback. My plan is to carefully review other bios that are already up and do not have issues and to try to utilize thier methodology. I have found the citation / reference sections difficult to input and will try to sort that out. Can you tell me what GS and NPOV mean? Dr. Wolfe's work is cited by many other authors in peer-reviewed journals. There is a citation service which could be referenced- i don't know if that is acceptable. For eg, the reference to children of battered women syndrome is regularly referenced and attributed to he and his colleague. Is that the kind of reference you require? My thought had been that, since his work is in peer-reviewed journals, that in and of itself was "external"- anyone who has had to go through the peer acceptance process will appreciate what i am saying. Again, thank you for the helpful comments. Bll79llb (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)bll79llb — Bll79llb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

:*Comment GS=Google Scholar. --Crusio (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep as significant contributor to his field - I edited out some of the "spam and puffery" — Pjaffe2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep. Easily meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), and probably other criteria as well. Total citations on GS are over 8,000. Three most cited papers have more than 290 citations each. His book on children of battered women alone has more than 700 citations on GS. His h-index is a very high 48, comparable to those of some Nobel laureates.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 18:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep The subject seems to meet WP:PROF. The article is overly self-referential but that is more of a style issue. Professor Wolfe has contributed to this article himself (please note that his first edit summary discloses this and states his reasons) so the page should certainly be reviewed to avoid potential conflict of interest. But in itself, I feel the subject has the required notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 12:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article does suffer from overly promotional tone that needs to be moderated, but the subject is notable. Apart from high citability noted above, he also has significant national and international awards that are listed in the article and verified (particularly the Donald O. Hebb Award from the Canadian Psychological Association, and the Blanche L. Ittleson Award from the American Orthopsychiatric Association). Passes WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2011 (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.