Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Perrett

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. - Mailer Diablo 10:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Perrett[edit]

Not notable. Mdbrownmsw (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well represented in the popular press, including one story about his peers rating him as one of the top ten British psychologists. I added some references to the article. And his Google scholar citation results are very impressive. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How prestigious are those awards that he received? --Smashville^BONK! 20:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Equally strong citation record in Web of Science: More than 100 journal articles garnering over 8000 citations in total, and an h-index of 46! Very impressive. The clearest case of "keep" that I have seen in any AfD debate. Article needs expansion, not deleting. --Crusio (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fully meets WP:PROFTEST, the article just needs work to bring it out. ==Paularblaster (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His 1994 article was major national news at the time. Far more than trivial passing coverage. If it were borderline, the quality of the article might be a concern and suggest merging, but he's had too much press to consider doing that. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. By the way, we have two articles, not connected to each other, closely related to the subject of Perrett's research: Koinophilia and Averageness. I've tagged them for a possible merge but would welcome more informed opinions. I mention it here in part because I think Perrett's article should link to one or both of them but in their disconnected state I'm not sure what the best way to link them would be. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep, obvious, per Crusio. (FWIW, against the merge suggestion, for reasons I will discuss elsewhere) Suggest link to Averageness, not Koinophilia. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2007 (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.