Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Greenfield (author)

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. Deor (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Greenfield (author)[edit]

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

This is an autobiography by Psydoc47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). That user is also known as Dr. David Greenfield <psydoc47 at gmail dot com>.

Dr. Greenfield is a US-based clinical psychologist who specializes in treating Internet addiction. You can view his resume elsewhere, in PDF or HTML formats.

It was a mistake for Dr. Greenfield to put an autobiographical article on Wikipedia. But let's consider our options now. We have two choices:

Keep and cleanup.
Delete.

I was unable to tell whether or not Dr. Greenfield meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria in the first place. Does he? If so, we should keep the article and clean it up. (We could trim it down to a stub, to make the job easier.) If not, we should delete the article.

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the CV. Fails WP:PROF--almost no peer-reviewed publications. No major awards; no national offices. No evidence of meeting NAUTHOR: almost all the "publications" listed here are mere presentations and mostly local meetings. No evidence of meeting GNG, & no reason to expect any. I might consider deleting this as G11 speedy, advertising. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of meeting the general notability guideline, or any subject specific guidelines.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philg88 ^♦talk 13:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per DGG. I note that he's had some presentations and panels at national conferences, but still fails the PROF test. Presenting at national conferences is a bare minimum for academics. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 13 October 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.