Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam S. Radomsky

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. After the extensive work of User:Russ Woodroofe and User:TJMSmith on the article and the consensus reached, I'm hereby closing this discussion as keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam S. Radomsky

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

He doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. No clear references either and reads as if written to promote candidate. Boleyn (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. The article needs work, but unless I'm mistaken, his editor position is a clear pass of WP:NPROF C8. His citation record also looks like it meets WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:PROF #1, 3, and 8. PROMO is not a reason for deletion. TJMSmith (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lets remove the promotional feel and keep the article. WP:PRESERVE. Subject meets WP:PROF#1. Wm335td (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this such a high-citation field that having five thousand citations listed by Google Scholar is insufficient to pass WP:PROF#C1? I rather doubt it. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article wasn't so terrible before, and is looking better after some work by TJMSmith and myself. My main remaining complaint is that the "Obsessive–compulsive disorder" template is huge, overly detailed, contains information that I'm not sure should be there, etc. (But that's a separate deletion proposal or edit.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2020 (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.