Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Widiger

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. Pruning can be done through normal editing, AfD is not for cleanup. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Widiger[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article reads like a resume. Has been flagged for cleanup since 2007 with little to no improvement. No results in JSTOR. He's an academic psychologist, so of course he is published but he doesn't appear to be a notable academic psychologist. *Kat* ^(meow?) 11:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A GScholar search gives an h-index score of over 60 which, even with most or all of the articles multiple-authored, would be well beyond enough to pass WP:Prof#1 in most areas. If this area is an exception, then someone will no doubt come along and correct me. PWilkinson (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That h-index is kinda conclusive, but somebody who knows psychology should go and prune that bibliography so that only the most important works are listed. Successful academics have hundreds of publications, and Wikipedia is not meant to be a repository of their entire CVs. Ray^Talk 14:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. h-index is conclusive but nom would be entitled to purge unnecessary material. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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.