- 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. Courcelles 11:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick Ellis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
BLP with no secondary sources independent of the subject. The WordsmithCommunicate 06:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Gscholar h-index of 33, which may be sufficient under criterion 1 of WP:PROF (psych is a very high citation rate field), in addition, he is general editor of Language Learning, satisfying WP:PROF criterion 8. RayTalk 23:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on basis of above evidence. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. I'm not quite sure what it means that Language Learning has separate positions for "general editor" and "journal editor", but I get the impression from their author guidelines that the general editor is the one that sets the editorial policy, and as such I'm convinced that he passes WP:PROF#C8. The citations (12 papers with over 100 citations each in Google scholar) are also enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2010 (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.