Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Boyle (psychologist)

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. Consensus is that the article meets the WP:PROF notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Boyle (psychologist)[edit]

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

Autobiographical vanity piece by a questionably notable person. Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - actually, this appears to be a pretty neutral and accurate WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY by someone (presumably unaware of the rules on autobiography) who happens to be notable. He's a full professor for 20+ years, now emeritus, fellow of various learned societies and has been included in Australian Who's Who (which selects its biographees based on merit). I expect his H-index will be sufficient as well. Le petit fromage (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. the societies he is a fellow of do not grant automatic notability unlike Royal Society. He has received insufficient peer recognition to establish WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His H-index is 29, which I find to be convincing. EricEnfermero (Talk) 18:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm less impressed by the h-index, and more by the fact that he has five publications with over 100 citations each in his Google Scholar profile [1], but regardless I agree that he passes WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a fellow of the AUS and USA Psychological Societies and very distinguished Alec Station (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been aware of this scholar's writings for years, and there are adequate sources for a NPOV article about him, and no doubt about notability. There have been a lot of bad problems with the article, which so far has mostly been edited by the subject of the article, but several Wikipedians are reminding him about the rules here, and meanwhile the article's existence is warranted by sources independent of the author. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:29, 1 July 2015 (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.