Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Solomon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Solomon

Philip Solomon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a memorial - Cybergoth 17:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I agree with the reasoning of the nom, wikipedia is not a memorial but I think this guy has done enough to make him notable for WP:BIO and WP:PROF so the article needs a major clean-up and wikification not deleting. Tagged as such and I might even have a go at it myself Madmedea 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Major rewrite now done. Article now looks like any other notable academic stub. Still needs referencing as I feel that info is likely to be found in paper sources not the web - but the information is verifiable (just not verified yet). His Handbook of Psychiatry does look like it was a major textbook therefore fulfilling WP:PROF. Madmedea 18:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete the article is a mess and needs a total rewrite. It does however, make multiple claims of notability which if sourced would change my opinion.Keep based on rewrite. Nuttah68 17:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep subject to total rewrite and some proper sources on his work. HeartofaDog 18:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is notable for Wikipedia and it dosen't read like a memorial. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 19:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Good rewrite, Madmedea. I agree that this now looks like a clear pass for WP:PROF: strong pub record, has held important positions, and the husband-of-a-senator part is while not relevant for WP:PROF an interesting side note. —David Eppstein 19:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow! Now that it is re-written, I change my nomination to Keep. - Cybergoth 23:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. John Vandenberg 21:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • keep It is now clearly a keep. I know AfD is not supposed to be used for improving low quality articles, but it sometimes seems to have that effect. DGG 05:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per comments already made, this doesn't read like an obituary page so the "Wikipedia is not a memorial" mantra does not apply. (jarbarf) 20:03, 14 February 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.