Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel J. Benor

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. Tawker (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Benor

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

Fails WP:BIO. Only sources present in previous incarnations of the article were in violation of WP:PSTS and removed as soapboxing. jps (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A GS h-index of 12 in a well cited field fails WP:Prof#C1: not much else. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Uncertain I am not sure h index when not analyzed further is helpful for people who are clinicians, not researchers. But:

The highest cited articles are 139, 115, 99 ; I think articles with this level of citation might show notability-- h=17 can been 17 articles each with 17 citations, which is non-notable, or 17 articles, 14 of which have 17-50 citations, and 3 have 99-100 which might be .

One of the articles is a review in Medical clinics of North America, a respected mainstream journal aimed at practitioners

Worldcat shows a number of books, also, tho none have substantial holdings.

The citations in GS are almost entirely in alternative medicine journals. I personally have a considerable prejudice about most of this field, especially those parts that can be called "Energy medicine" , which is the subject's area. I therefore watch out for the tendency to think people in that field unimportant. Nonetheless, I rather doubt he's a major figure. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Literally the only notable reference to the subject is what seems to be a biography/advertisement written by the person himself. --Flipandflopped (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2014 (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.