Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Wilken

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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. The last two votes have been ignored as sock puppets, but there is still no clear consensus to delete. — JIP | Talk 10:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Wilken

Was tagged for speedy deletion as nn-bio by User:Peri, but does not qualify. Bringing it to AfD instead to respect the wishes of the original tagger. No vote. howcheng {chat} 18:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete 2 papers no assertion of notability, seems to qualify as nn-bio to me. --Pboyd04 19:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; Doesn't meet the criteria for notability. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 21:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Revise I can't see how this academic is notable from reading the text of the article. If his notable status & achievements could be brought to the fore then the article would merit inclusion. As it stands, delete. -- (aeropagitica)  22:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems clearly to be notable. Are we looking at the same article? He seems to be very active in studying consciousness, and has edited an online journal that is at least marginally interesting. James James 22:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Work published in peer-reviewed journals, founding an online journal and notable involvement in the society for the study of consciousness clearly make a case for notability. --EncephalonSeven   15:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Many people have had work published in journals. Books are required. Stifle 00:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Founder of only international organisation promoting scientific study of consciousness, only on-line journal promoting consciousness research. Disagree with Stifle (above); no-one who is a serious scientific researcher is judged on their books but instead on peer-reviewed literature. Books entirely irrelevant. Dupin

• Keep. Agree with Dupin. As the founder of the ASSC and Psyche - both of which are important and were at the time of foundation truly visionary contributions to the promotion of the interdisciplinary academic study of consciousness, he is clearly notable. Moreover, his publications in peer-reviewed journals prove his seriousness as an academic and he is currently editing an important book.

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.