Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davy Vancampfort

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. per David E DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Davy Vancampfort

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

A stub which may not meet notability standards. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until an argument for deletion is presented -- why is a stub which may not meet notability standards being brought here? The evidence for notability is presented in the article, with the presidency of an international association of Physicians and a huge list of first authored publications. That might not be enough for GNG or WP:PROF, but some research to counteract the notability presented in the article needs to be done before going to AfD. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does not appear to pass WP:PROF at this time, although he is young and could qualify in the future (WP:TOOSOON?). His citation rate at Google Scholar is not high (though that could change since all his articles are recent). The presidency of a subgroup of an international organization does not meet WP:PROF either. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's one paper in Google scholar by him with over 100 citations, but he's not first author, and the other pubs have much lower cite counts. So I'm not convinced of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2012 (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.