Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Slavin

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 09:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Slavin

Dunno who nominated this, but I'll start the voting.

• delete nn academic ---CH (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per A7: no assertion of notability. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as per --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi}

Weak Keep Dlyons493 Talk 09:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, "psychologist" is an assertion of notability, and he's used as a reference in another article. Kappa 09:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Our Ability grouping article lists him as a leading opponent of that practice. He holds a senior post at Johns Hopkins see [1]. However this article is barely a substub. Keep and expand seems to be the best course of events. Capitalistroadster 10:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Probably best to keep since, though his notability is certainly borderline, he doesn't seem to be a complete non-entity either [2]. However, the mere description "psychologist" is no more an "assertion of notability" (see comment above) than "bricklayer", "Marxist" or "Wikipedian"! Flapdragon 13:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment agree with Flapdragon on all counts. This article shows one of the problems with stubby articles that give no context within which notability can be estimated! Dlyons493 Talk 13:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep as per Flapdragon, it is best to err on the side of inclusion on these borderline cases. Hall Monitor 18:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Although this is just a stub, following the link to his bio gives information that justifies his inclusion. -- DS1953 13:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.