Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Fessler

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Fessler[edit]

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

Google only shows me that this person does exist and that he's at UCLA. I don't find any evidence that makes him especially notable. Where's the third-party coverage? — Timneu22 · talk 10:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - If the "person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline", as the article seems to imply, then he may qualify as notable. However, there are no sources cited to demonstrate that assertion. Davnor (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is certainly poor (I just cleaned it a bit), but I think the subject is notable according to WP:PROF #1. Specifically, WoS shows 34 research papers with h-index=11. Some might judge this borderline, however, the collective number of citations well exceeds 300 and I believe this clinches. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. He has one quite well cited paper (180 cites in Google scholar), but the depth of strong papers is a bit less than I'd like to see for a pass of WP:PROF #1. And he is editor-in-chief of a journal from a major publisher that's been published since 1997, but one of four editors-in-chief of that journal. So I think there's a weak pass of both criteria #1 and #8. The length and sourcing of the article are not great, but what's there is adequately sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as editor in chief of a major journal. (even as joint editor-in-chief) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Weak keep. WoS h-index isn't that impressive but doesn't include the dozen book chapters he's written (unlike Google Scholar which gives him an h-index of 19). The journal he co-edits, Evolution and Human Behavior, doesn't have a particularly impressive impact factor but comes 4th in its category (Behavioral Sciences) for Article Influence score according to Journal Citation Reports, so may count as a "major well-established journal" in his subject area as required by WP:ACADEMIC criterion 8. --Qwfp (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2010 (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.