Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Crano

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Crano[edit]

Generic professor. Worthy, but not encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are placed to verify notability. Amazon confirms that he is an author but that alone doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF. JodyB_talk 22:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full professor in a notable graduate school (Claremont). Fellow, not just member, of the American Psychological Association (APA) and American Psychological Society (APS), NATO Senior Scientist, Fulbright Fellow. Director of the Program in Social Psychology at the National Science Foundation (NSF). Ede. board of several journals. Book by a major publisher in field (Erlbaum), chapters in others (Blackwell, Cambridge UP) Eighteen peer-reviewed journal articls. That's just what was in the article. This is what makes for notability as a scientist. The average scientist has nothing of the sort. "Generic professor" can I supposed by applied to any professor with equal lack of logic or explanation.DGG 23:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Article could certainly use some enhancement by way of citations to absolutely verify the listed claims. But assuming they are, in fact, true, he's well beyond "generic professor". Mwelch 01:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep passes wp:prof with ease.--Buridan 10:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless all full professors are to be considered notable. And to become full professor you normally need at least one book and eighteen articles; actually, that's not many for full professor. In that sense he is indeed a "generic professor," in that he has (barely) done what it takes to be full professor. But WP:PROF suggests a rather higher hurdle has to be overcome. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Nominating immediately after creation is inappropriate. John Vandenberg 09:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Seems a clear pass for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein 19:07, 10 June 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.