Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Rogers (psychologist)

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 per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Rogers (psychologist)

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

Insufficient notability. Daask (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep h-index of 67, which is definitely high enough to meet WP:PROF criterion 1 (see also User:Czar/h-index). His status as a Regents Professor, his fellowship in the Society of Personality Assessment and the American Psychological Association's Divisions 12 and 41, and his receiving the Manfred S. Guttmacher Award, among other things, also indicate that he is clearly quite notable per WP:PROF criterion 2 at least. Nominator is reminded of WP:BEFORE. Everymorning (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:PROF — passes on criterion 1 at least, and probably also 2 and 5. XOR'easter (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- in addition to WP:PROF, the subject likely meets WP:AUTHOR with widely held books, which appear to be standard textbooks. For example, Fundamentals of Forensic Practice Mental Health and Criminal Law by Richard Rogers; Daniel W Shuman, is held by 650 libraries. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, could use expansion, but the publishers' of his books are known companies and has just enough to pass GNG. Kierzek (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:PROF - h-index and citation count make this obvious without even assessing anything else.Icewhiz (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.