Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren S. Brown

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; good analysis, with consensus leaning to keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warren S. Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article is constructed exclusively out of primary sources and broken links. Contains no specific claim to notability. Previously Prodded by user:BlinkingBlimey. Perhaps someone more familiar with our notability requirements for academics can take a look. CorporateM (Talk) 19:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC. He is a professor of psychology, but not at a major university. Publications: His name is on four or five highly-cited articles from when he was at UCLA, but in each case there are half-a-dozen other authors; I don't feel this meets the citation criteria which would show him to be a "thought leader in his field". --MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He's 2nd Author of a Nature Paper that's cited over 300x and also of a couple of books/articles with Nancey Murphy. Since he's working interdisciplinarily between Neuroscience and Theology that's a pretty high citation record. NBeale (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC) {PS also co-authored "an excellent book" according to the review [1] in the British Journal of Psychiatry NBeale (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per WP:NACADEMICS. Previous listing in American Men and Women of Science (= reference on leading scientists). APA honorary fellow in two divisions (= shown evidence of unusual and outstanding contributions/performance in the field of psychology). From what I can tell, the main impact of Brown's work is interdisciplinary (psychology+religion) in nature, both via publications and public appearances (e.g. he was in almost as many episodes (4) of Closer to Truth as Neil deGrasse Tyson (5); uncredited on IMDb, IMDb is outdated). Note that WP:ACADEMIC is independent from WP:BIO and lists quite different criteria. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is also on the editorial board of the journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, and he received a Research Scientist Development Award from the National Institute of Mental Health. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added and fixed several references, and I've added material (including the new § Awards and honors section). Of course there's still room for improvement. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:PROF#C1. A h-index of 39, by my count, including some papers with very high citation counts. -- 120.23.61.162 (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC) — 120.23.61.162 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment I don't see why this was re-listed. Maybe because I'm an IP editor or because I added a "weak keep". He only needs to pass one of the conditions of WP:NACADEMICS. He passes several. He passes 8. because (for decades) he was on the editorial board of the journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. He passes 3. because he is an honorary fellow of Division 40 and Division 6 of the American Psychological Association. He passes 2. because he received a Research Scientist Development Award (Type I) from the NIMH, plus several other awards including two Phillip M. Rennick Awards. And, last but not least, he passes 1. for his interdisciplinary (psychology+religion) work (mentioned in American Men and Women of Science, a reference on leading scientists; he's one the main players in his discipline).

--82.136.210.153 (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with your interpretation of WP:ACADEMIC. He does not meet #8, which says "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area"; he was not the head or chief editor, merely on the editorial board, and it is debatable whether Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith is a major academic journal. He does not meet #3, because "Honorary Fellow" of the APA is an early-career distinction that people can apply for, as "one of the first steps to enhancement of their professional credentials".[2] He does not meet #2, because those are not major awards (this refers to a very few high-status awards - Nobel level or close). His only viable claim to WP:ACADEMIC is that his name is on some publications which are highly cited, and while I respect the analysis of those who feel he qualifies per his publication citations, I do not feel it is enough. --MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With a h-index of 39, he easily meets WP:PROF#C1, which means it doesn't really matter whether or not he meets #2, #3, or #8. -- 120.23.18.210 (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC) — 120.23.18.210 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. The article has been cleaned up and he appears to pass WP:PROF#C1 —  120.23.61.162 already noted his high h-index and he has 11 publications that were cited 100 or more times according to Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Sufficient academic career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2015 (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.