365:
for deletion is not relevant here, and the nominator here has voted for deletion of the other article. This could be marginally construed as a conflict of interest. The nominator needs more familiarity with "how academia works" particularly as pertains to the field of psychology. Secondary sources would certainly add to the artcle, but are not absolutely necessary for its existence. Further it may be decades after the death of the subject that secondary sources become available in large numbers. Some may exist now and are just not in the list. I certainly wouldn't go out on a limb and claim they don't exist. Further, the non-existence of wiki articles about the referenced journals is also hardly relevant. There are uncountable subjects in very specialized fields that there are no wiki articles on. Authors in specialized fields probably spend a lot more time working in professional, peer reviewed journals than they do writing about journals for wikipedia. As to
385:. Uh, it's kinda not, if you're arguing that those publications alone are what make the guy noteworthy. Take for example two fiction writers: one's published about two dozen short stories in Playboy, the New Yorker, GQ, Zoetrope, and similar publications &c. The other has published twice as many stories in local literary zines and college digests with a circulation under 1000. Which one is notable? The mere fact of publication--in any form--does not confer notability. There are clinical psychologists who have written entire books all by themselves, on notable publishers, who are not themselves notable. This guy doesn't even qualify as a wikipedia footnote.
294:, you can see how even the most minor and non-notable of academics often has a ridiculous number of publications to their credit. It is not (necessarily) proof that that person is regarded in any way as important in their field. Just a few samples of non-notable people with CVs matching or exceeding Berger's who work just across the street from me:
417:
as the related article on one of Berger's theories, an editor who has ONLY edited the Berger and Berger-theory article, so I don't think it's totally unreasonable to wonder if this isn't a vanity create by Berger himself. Just because someone says their contributions to the field are "major" doesn't
444:
Again, the notability of the references is purely your own opinion. Fiction is not at all the same as non-fiction. Again, just because some other person doesn't have an article here doesn't mean they or this guy shouldn't, and the relative crappiness or podunkness of the institutions they might work
364:
alone make this person notable. The "prestige" or "notability" of the journals used as references is irrelevant and purely a matter of opinion. Lists of other persons that don't have articles written about them are not good arguments for deletion. The fact that a related article has been nominated
474:
Call it whatever you want; I've made my recommendation on a course of action to be taken and I've given my reasons for it. You may "not saying anyone else's article (or lack thereof) should be used as proof that this guy shouldn't get one," but you keep bringing up other hypothetical subjects for
449:
my exact words were "could be marginally construed as." You are not just a voter, you are the nominator here are you not? Also it is not required for me or anyone else to explain to your satisfaction why this guy is more notable than some person who is not and consequently has no article written
459:
I'm not saying anyone else's article (or lack thereof) should be used as proof that this guy shouldn't get one, I'm saying if the threshold for professional notability is this low, virtually every aged college professor, from Yale on down to humble CUNY schools, ought to have a wiki article too,
509:
This is a CV designed to create notability and possibly work. It was created by one account, that is traced to Japan, and this guy's practice is in Japan. It is written in similar format and tone to his personal/work page listed as a link. Off topic question, don't biographies usually have a
226:
is 1) 2 pages long, 2) 11 years old, 3) something on which he is only a co-author. The citations look more impressive than they are; they're pretty much all for trade journals like "European Eating
Disorders Review". It's basically just a CV, not an article.
475:
articles in your arguments. It sounds like that's what you're saying in your nomination and several comments including the one above. Afd's don't exist to "set the bar" or create precident. Each one has to be considered individually.
204:
is, in my opinion, a notable achievement in itself. Being published in such selective publications is a significant achievement in itself; doing it multiple times is more than enough to justify the existence of an article, IMO.
460:
which is clearly an absurd statement. Also, Afd is a debate, not a vote or a straw poll, and I'm not aware of any requirement that says I must refrain from participating because the AfD was my idea in the first place.
245:
It would seem to me that you couldn't get this many articles published if you weren't regarded as an important figure by independent academics in this field, or if you did, all those articles would make you important.
553:
221:
references, you'll see they're both published in the magazine's letters column. They are not articles. In fact, 1/4 of the citations given are just letters to the respective journals. The citation from
340:, none of the other sources are "notable", despite assertions here to the contrary, i.e. there isn't a wiki article for a single one of them. By my reckoning, this guy fulfills NONE of the criteria for
413:(which I think you need to read through more thoroughly if you think voting on two related AfD constitutes conflict of interest), it's worthwhile to point out that this article was created by the same
134:. Subject has published a small handful of articles in some journals of low to middling prestige, but the same could be said of most tenured college professors. Douglas has received zero
143:
123:
196:
Such coverage is rare for a researcher is an unglamourous field like clinical psychiatry. However, repeated publication in well-known publications such as
397:
and as far as "how academia works", you can find at least fifty people as notable as this guy teaching at even the crappiest, most podunk college campus.
526:
163:) down to a number of well-respected Japanese-language journals. I don't see what more is necessary to establish a scientist's notability.
247:
96:
91:
17:
286:, but you are perhaps unfamiliar with how academia works? Publish or perish. Having obscure trade journals publish your essays is
100:
176:
135:
83:
430:
you haven't actually explained what makes this guy any more significant or well known than any other academic in his field.
333:
218:
201:
255:
579:
36:
290:
for pretty much anyone with that sort of job. It is NOT unusual. Just perusing the CVs of random professors at the
180:
578:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
522:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
303:
60:
563:
543:
514:
499:
479:
464:
454:
434:
422:
401:
389:
373:
369:, an easily applied criteria here is "The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known."
348:
324:
274:
231:
209:
191:
167:
150:
131:
65:
518:
311:
307:
87:
315:
313:
305:
461:
431:
419:
398:
386:
345:
321:
228:
188:
147:
295:
53:
317:
540:
495:
or at best gut it until it is little more than a stub. This is little more than a résumé. --
337:
223:
197:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
366:
341:
297:
283:
291:
446:
414:
410:
309:
49:
476:
451:
370:
299:
361:
79:
71:
319:
496:
270:
academics in the same field." It seems to me that this passes the notability test.
271:
117:
301:
560:
206:
164:
383:
The "prestige" or "notability" of the journals used as references is irrelevant
183:. He might have published in notable publications, but that doesn't mean
159:. Page lists 33 publications in journals from the extremely well known (
450:
about them. The significance of the body of work is self evident.
445:
for is also irrelevant. And since you want to further comment on
572:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
146:
is being debated for deletion a little further down the page.
113:
109:
105:
254:
of the following conditions, as substantiated through
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
554:list of Academics and educators-related deletions
582:). No further edits should be made to this page.
362:Major contributions to the field of psychiatry
336:, and co-writing a two-page article ONCE for
8:
332:aside from getting two letters printed in
262:notable...2: The person is regarded as an
552:: This debate has been included in the
250:: "If an academic/professor meets any
248:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics)
217:. If you look closely at both of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
334:American Journal of Psychiatry
219:American Journal of Psychiatry
202:American Journal of Psychiatry
1:
409:and since you're bringing up
136:coverage in secondary sources
181:Notability is not inherited
599:
575:Please do not modify it.
564:09:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
544:22:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
500:15:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
480:10:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
465:04:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
455:01:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
435:16:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
423:16:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
402:16:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
390:16:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
374:00:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
349:22:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
325:22:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
275:22:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
232:22:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
210:20:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
192:17:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
168:17:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
151:04:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
66:17:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
52:– no secondary sources.
32:Please do not modify it.
282:. Not to sound like a
415:single purpose account
179:; there is none.
566:
557:
531:
517:comment added by
198:Science (journal)
177:secondary sources
590:
577:
558:
548:
530:
511:
418:mean anything.
360:The articles in
264:important figure
256:reliable sources
121:
103:
63:
58:
34:
598:
597:
593:
592:
591:
589:
588:
587:
586:
580:deletion review
573:
561:John Vandenberg
519:168.105.113.184
512:
175:. Coverage in
144:related article
94:
78:
75:
61:
54:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
596:
594:
585:
584:
568:
567:
546:
533:
532:
503:
502:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
469:
468:
467:
439:
438:
437:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
240:
239:
238:
237:
236:
235:
234:
128:
127:
80:Douglas Berger
74:
72:Douglas Berger
69:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
595:
583:
581:
576:
570:
569:
565:
562:
555:
551:
547:
545:
542:
539:per Mordicai
538:
535:
534:
528:
524:
520:
516:
508:
505:
504:
501:
498:
494:
491:
490:
481:
478:
473:
470:
466:
463:
458:
457:
456:
453:
448:
443:
440:
436:
433:
429:
426:
425:
424:
421:
416:
412:
408:
405:
404:
403:
400:
396:
393:
392:
391:
388:
384:
380:
377:
376:
375:
372:
368:
363:
359:
356:
350:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
328:
327:
326:
323:
320:
318:
316:
314:
312:
310:
308:
306:
304:
302:
300:
298:
296:
293:
292:local college
289:
285:
281:
278:
277:
276:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
244:
241:
233:
230:
225:
220:
216:
213:
212:
211:
208:
203:
199:
195:
194:
193:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
171:
170:
169:
166:
162:
158:
155:
154:
153:
152:
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
132:WP:NOTABILITY
125:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
64:
59:
57:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
574:
571:
549:
541:Adam Cuerden
536:
513:— Preceding
506:
492:
471:
441:
427:
406:
394:
382:
378:
357:
329:
287:
279:
267:
263:
259:
251:
242:
214:
187:is notable.
184:
172:
160:
156:
139:
129:
55:
45:
43:
31:
28:
330:Furthermore
268:independent
258:, they are
477:Aspenocean
452:Aspenocean
371:Aspenocean
260:definitely
497:mordicai.
288:de rigeur
527:contribs
515:unsigned
200:and the
124:View log
56:Krakatoa
48:. Fails
472:Comment
462:Ford MF
442:Comment
432:Ford MF
420:Ford MF
407:Comment
399:Ford MF
395:Comment
387:Ford MF
379:Comment
367:WP:PROF
346:Ford MF
342:WP:PROF
338:Science
322:Ford MF
280:Comment
272:Nyttend
229:Ford MF
224:Science
215:Comment
189:Ford MF
173:Comment
161:Science
148:Ford MF
97:protect
92:history
537:Delete
507:Delete
493:Delete
447:WP:COI
411:WP:COI
207:JulesH
165:JulesH
130:Fails
101:delete
50:WP:BIO
46:Delete
140:Note:
118:views
110:watch
106:links
62:Katie
16:<
550:Note
523:talk
510:DOB?
428:Also
358:Keep
284:dick
243:Keep
157:Keep
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
559:--
556:.
381:.
344:.
266:by
252:one
138:.
122:– (
529:)
525:•
185:he
142:a
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
521:(
126:)
120:)
82:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.