Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Fessler (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 09:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Fessler

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

Unremarkable person. Notability has not been established, even in the prior deletion discussion. This would fall under A7 for speedy deletion, but somehow this article survived a deletion discussion in 2010. Gamebuster (Talk)║Contributions) 09:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly not an A7. It was not deleted in 2010 because the subject passed WP:PROF on multiple criteria. That hasn't changed. In fact the case for him passing #C1 as a highly cited researcher is much stronger than it was before: he has 18 papers that have been cited over 100 times, one that has been cited over 1000 times, and a h-index of 39. That is a lot of coverage! – Joe (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Perhaps you nominate the wrong article not the one you intended. Besides numerous points highlighted above, he also passes WP:PROF #8. He has been editor in chief of peer-reviewed academic journal Evolution and Human Behavior. Thus passing multiple criteria. Though the article is in bad shape, but that is not reason for deletion. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets WP:PROF and per prior AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The case for WP:PROF was weak (but confirmed) ten years ago; it is strong now. The nomination statement fails to advance a reason for deletion that justifies overturning the previous consensus. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep h-index high 30s, ed of a mainstream journal, etc. Nom may wish to withdraw this to save time. Agricola44 (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2018 (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.