- 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 05:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Fred Baughman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I believe this has been significantly edited by someone close to the subject. I'm honestly not even sure the subject is notable enough to pass WP:GNG. (talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 15:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- At first glance I thought that fellowship of the American Academy of Neurology might, if sourced, meet WP:PROF criterion 3, but its requirements don't appear to be "highly selective" as required, and I can't see anything that might meet any other criterion of that guideline, so any possible notability would have to be based on the general notability guideline, which I haven't yet checked. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 16:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete a critic of the accepted consensus in psychiatry who lacks the coverage in reliable sources to justify having an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I also have been unable to find enough coverage in independent reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 08:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as nothing for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 19 September 2016 (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.
- 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 05:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Fred Baughman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I believe this has been significantly edited by someone close to the subject. I'm honestly not even sure the subject is notable enough to pass WP:GNG. (talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 15:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- At first glance I thought that fellowship of the American Academy of Neurology might, if sourced, meet WP:PROF criterion 3, but its requirements don't appear to be "highly selective" as required, and I can't see anything that might meet any other criterion of that guideline, so any possible notability would have to be based on the general notability guideline, which I haven't yet checked. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 16:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete a critic of the accepted consensus in psychiatry who lacks the coverage in reliable sources to justify having an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I also have been unable to find enough coverage in independent reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 08:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as nothing for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 19 September 2016 (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.