Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Piacentini

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' as a week has suggested nothing else (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Piacentini[edit]

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

No independent refs Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Doc James:, thanks for pointing out this problem! I recognize that this article does not have enough articles to establish its notability. I will follow the guideline of WP:Academics to correct this problem, and will update this section as I find more sources. I appreciate the time taken to look at the article! Ongmianli (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Doc James:, do take a look at the John Piacentini article. I'd love your comments on further improving its notability. Appreciate it! Ongmianli (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The usual source for academics seems to be sufficient here, unless it is normal for non-notable clinical psychologists to have received so many thousands of citations to their works. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C1 (highly cited publications) and #C3 (fellow of major professional societies). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Scholar estimates his h-index as 60 [1], which is sufficient to meet WP:PROF. Also president elect/past president of national societies. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

need to look further, but, Espresso Addict a raw h- index is never an argument for either keeping or deleting. It depends on the subject field, and also on whether there were any really heavily cited articles. h-index cannot distinguish between someone with a large deal of not-very-important work, and someone who has made major contributions. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this was pretty much intended as a late-night shorthand for "keep per everyone above me". Top five cited papers in GS are 1721, 721, 681, 442, 415, and there are around 37 papers with 100 or more citations. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking further, though the first, third and fourth articles in GS are whee he is one of the authors of a very large multi-authored study, there are at least 10 papers where he was one of the two or three authors of a paper that had over 200 references. This is sufficient for notability . DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stunning cites in GS pass WP:Prof by miles. Nominator's rationale is hard to understand. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2016 (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.