Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred M. Levin (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 March 3.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred M. Levin

Strip away the occasional WP:PEACOCK term and you are left with a generic academic; I believe this fails WP:PROF by a fair margin and is very close to a WP:CSD#A7 speedy. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sentence and links related to his work. Mwalla (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

Delete per nom; not notable person; was unable to find any sources on the internet that suggests sufficient notability. Letsdrinktea (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was speedy deleted the first time due to copyright infringement. That has been corrected.

Fred Levin is a noted medical doctor. He is on the faculty of Northwestern University. He founded a institute to help deaf people who have mental illness. He has written several books on psychotherapy.

I think he is just as significant to his field as any of the other psychotherapists at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Psychotherapists

If these do not make him notable according to wikipedia standards, delete the page.

Also, I beleive that a user has a grudge against me and malicously nominated the page for deletion then found a copyright infringement which he raised. I fixed it, but he is still hounding me. Mwalla (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

Comment. It was I, not the nominator of the first AfD, who noted the copyvio and tagged the article for speedy deletion; and I certainly don't have a grudge against you, since I've never encountered you before now. I do have a question, though. If Levin is indeed an associate professor of psychiatry at the Feinberg School of Medicine, why doesn't he appear in the department's list of faculty members? Deor (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you are correct. It appears that he is an associate professor, Clinical. I am not sure if the "clinical" indicates that he is not currently teaching. He still has contact info, but I do not know why he is not listed on the faculty page. http://directory.northwestern.edu/index.cgi?pq=fred+levin&query=handle%3D52616e646f6d4956bb1df4a118f26432b6e5e5f00d2be87357b8321a1fbf9ebcc334a5c1c9ff3728&more=1&a=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwalla (talk • contribs) 21:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar. Not sure how to evaluate, but here is a Google Scholar search and here are (209) libraries carrying one of his books. Amazon has three of his books in print. All that said, the article itself isn't particularly illuminating on his contributions to the field. But that may require an expansion, not a deletion. Barte (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- subcomment - Amazon doesn't "have books in print"; they carry anything and everything, no matter how obscure or crappy, they are offered. Having something on Amazon is no evidence of notability, to put it mildly. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher is a small (40 books a year) indie firm called Karnac, who specialise in psychoanalytic texts. yandman 15:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I undertook a good faith Google search and Google news search and was unable to identify any significant coverage (indeed any news coverage whatsoever). Bongo matic 01:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable enough for me; plenty of sources exist at Google Scholar. He may not be famous, but he's notable as a scholar. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That GS search lists several publications by Levin, however, the citation counts (66, 51, 20, 20) are fairly minimal for someone working in this field. --Crusio (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And work by him is of little use, it is work about him we need. Guy (Help!) 18:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable enough for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhockey10 (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the MENDAC institute had been important, I think I'd have opted for keeping. Unfortunately, it seems as unnotable as its alleged founder. yandman 15:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Does not seem to clearly pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Citation impact is not negligible, but falls short of what is needed to justify keeping the article. The same is true for book holdings; most widely held book in libraries, Mapping the mind (published in 1991 by Analytic Press), currently in less than 220 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I don't see reliable sources, and the number of citations doesn't seem to be big enough.--Sloane (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment FWIW, for GS I get citations 66,50,20,20,15,15,10,7, for WoK I get 20,21,12,5,5,4,3,3,2,2,1,1, for h-indicies of 7 and 5 respectively. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GS often gives huge overestimates. I did a search for some articles where I know rather well how often they have been cited (guess what I Googled... :-) and found strange discrepancies. Any stuff before, say, 1996 may get undercounted, but many other things get overcounted. Still, it's easier to run a GS search and if that doesn't give high results for publications from the last 10 years or so, it's not really necessary to go to WoK (I have to enter a rather complicated userid and password to access WoK, may be different for others who are lucky enough to have IP access). --Crusio (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the page, I admit that most of the comments above are fair statements and I support the consensus. However, he seems just as notable as most of the members of . As far as the "rank" of his research papers, this seems to be an issue related to his field, as these articles point out (I am not trying to make excuses). http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=joap.048.0643a&type=hitlist&num=94&query=zone1%3Dparagraphs%26zone2%3Dparagraphs%26title%3Dpsychoanalysis%2Bresearch%26pagenum%3D4%26sort%3Dyear%252Ca#hit1 http://www.pep-web.org/document.php?id=ppsy.022.0473a&type=hitlist&num=2&query=zone1%3Dparagraphs%26zone2%3Dparagraphs%26title%3Dpsychoanalysis%2Bresearch%26sort%3Dhitrank%252Cd#hit1 Best, Mwalla (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

Keep. Can't see any reason to delete this. Here are the hits from Google scholar, and here from Google books. Seems notable enough. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Note to closing admin: this user opined on this AfD after being canvassed by the article's creator. Bongo matic 18:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a prominent figure in his field im the American mid-west. Philip Cross (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Note to closing admin: this user opined on this AfD after being canvassed by the article's creator. Bongo matic 18:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bongomatic, if you are going to make a special note of voters I canvassed, shouldn't you aslo note the voters that I canvassed who voted to delete such as Crusio, Skeptical Chemist, and Literature geek? Mwalla (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]
Note that I already participated in this debate before I was contacted by Mwalla on my talk page. --Crusio (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note to self, next time, do a better job canvassing. Mwalla (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

On the whole, I think I have to come down on the side of delete. The low citation counts (even if one takes the GS ones at face value) indicate that he has not really made a huge impact on his field. The fact that he has published books and articles is not very important here, publishing is what academics do. What counts is whether those publications influence the field and make their author in that way notable. I don't see enough evidence of that here. --Crusio (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that Mwalla is using WP:Canvassing, in particular, WP:Canvassing#Votestacking by sending messages like this one[1]: "I noticed you once posted a question about the Category:American Jews. I would like to add Fred M. Levin to that list. unfortunately, he may be deleted. Care to opine here?". See the following diffs with canvassing messages: [2]

[3][4][5][6] [7]. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warned. yandman 13:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be known that Skeptical Chemist has a grudge against me and initiated the page deletion because I created it. Mwalla (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

Delete as a not yet/non-notable acedemic. Citations are not high enough to consider him a leader in the field, and there are too few sources saying anything about him to write anything substantial. Fails WP:Prof.Yob Mod 13:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he is not notable at all. The only way to write an article on someone who is not notbale, eg who is not published in newspapers or other independent sources is basically a lot of original research and writing "factoids" from some university site. Also as he is not well known probably the only person who will edit his page is himself or one of his patients or family or friends etc. It will be prone to bias, vandalism or whatever and no one from wiki is likely to keep an eye on someone who is unnotable. Just delete it. There are too many reasons to delete and few if any even semi valid reasons to keep it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person meets criteria for academia being that he has written and published several books on psychotherapy. Broadly construed (which is the test) this person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline. Further, his publications demonstrated that he meets the criteria for notability as an author. Esasus (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Publishing books is not enough to be notable either under WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR, I think you need more than that to motivate a keep vote. --Crusio (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Esasus did use more than that to motivate his vote, he also said "Broadly construed (which is the test) this person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline." Mwalla (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

As far as I can see, his "broadly construed" rests completely on the fact that Levin has published. Whether those publications have influenced the field, let alone have made an impact, remains to be shown. --Crusio (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIt seems to me that Fred Levin is equally notable as most other psychotherapists, such as John_Welwood,Thomas_Grossmann,Stephen_Ticktin, Milton_Trachtenburg,Frances_Tustin, Dror_Elimelech, Ian_Craib, Paul_R._Martin, Ursula_Fleming,Ian_Craib, Fazal_Inayat-Khan, Bill_O'Hanlon Mwalla (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (aka WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) obviously applies here. --Crusio (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you find vast sections of an entire category of wikipedia to be crap. I guess you have a lot of deleting to do this weekend. Mwalla (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

Who are you talking to, exactly? In any case vast sections of Wikipedia are in fact crap and should be deleted, but this is not the place to discuss that. We're dealing with one piece of crap at a time here. JBsupreme (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about the comment directly above mine (is it that hard to figure that out?). Again, if you would like to delete large portions of wikipedia, you will be busy this weekend. Remember, wikipedia is not just for existing admins. Mwalla (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)mwalla[reply]

Delete This is an as-of-yet not notable academic which fails our inclusionary guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eric Yurken, Crusio, et al. fails WP:BIO, and WP:PROF Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2009 (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.