Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodore Shapiro

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The result was nomination withdrawn. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Shapiro

Theodore Shapiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable psychiatrist. There are a few ghits for him, but they're mostly passing quotes and don't really speak to his

• delete. Unreferenced, unclear notability. - Altenmann >t 15:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity page, no refs. Parkerparked (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. GS gives h = 24. Top cites 90, 84, 84, 77, 72..... Looks like a keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • You seem to have missed some. "ADHD as a disorder of adaptation" has 150 GS cites; "A psychodynamic model of panic disorder" has 98. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm not prepared to judge his citation record but it looks like he passes
  WP:PROF #8 as editor of the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association (I found a good source for this and will add it to the article). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Even stronger. Prodder may care to explain why he did not do this research himself. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Maybe the nominator doesn't routinely use Google Scholar. Let's be honest, there needs to be a certain amount of responsibility on the authors part. Just throwing an article on here and expecting others to source and demonstrate notability it shouldn't be accepted behavior. If you know enough about the subject to write the article and have enough interest in it, you should take reasonable steps to ensure the questions of notability and verifiability are at least answered to a fair degree. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that the original version of the article was far from perfect. Recent edits have much improved it. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I already added sources (at AfD nomination time it had none, so it's hard to blame the nominator for not being sure of his notability), and after your comment added another paragraph with an evaluation of his research from one of the sources and a list of his books. He seems to have been quite a prolific author. I should look for published reviews of the books so that we can have something secondary about them rather than just primary sources but I don't have time right now. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, you're right. This guy really is quite prolific. Assuming no one has any objections, I'm about ready to withdraw this nomination. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:52, 6 July 2009 (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.