Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert C. Kolodny

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. Non-admin closure. A near unanimous keep after the article was improved and source during the listing period. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Kolodny

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

Unsourced WP:BLP; was deleted out of process by User:Rdm2376. No sources to demonstrate notability. Rd232 ^talk 00:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again. It was very much deleted under due process as this violates the very spirit of BLP policy. It still does, and it was irresponsible to restore it without sourcing it immediately. JBsupreme (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, you've clearly not even bothered to click the "find sources" links provided above. There are ample sources available, and I looked enough to confirm that notability might be confirmable before restoring and AFD'ing. Rd232 ^talk 01:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it's gone through due process and been deleted, and you think it should be restored, shouldn't you userfy it and fix it, before you restore it to mainspace? Per WP:BLPDEL, due to the high standard that BLP articles must adhere to, the onus is on you to fix the article to demonstrate it should be kept, otherwise it must be deleted. As it stands, this is an easy speedy G4 candidate. Ivanvector (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The whole point was it wasn't "deleted under due process", it was a rogue deletion by an admin who was acting disruptively. I don't think even they would claim that any process was entered into at all. Orderinchaos 02:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, there was no process, I'll withdraw my comment above. It seems User:Rdm2376 has started a campaign to mass delete stale unreferencedBLP articles without following procedure or attempting to seek consensus. This should be stopped. Ivanvector (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, that's already happening. Ivanvector (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve Needs work but the author appears notable (checking on booksellers etc) and it should not be too difficult to source the uncontroversial claims made. Orderinchaos 02:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - he's a published author, a fact which is already noted in the article. Cites on the way. Frank | talk 02:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable physician and author. I added a review of one of his books. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep considering the added references. We have it confirmed once again: AfD is for cleanup. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep Article has references, but not the world's most notable sexologist and most academics are published. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This guy is published commercially...a big difference. He qualifies as notable on that basis alone, quite apart from any academic credentials. And, while notability is not inherited, it doesn't hurt to have been associated with Masters and Johnson. Frank | talk 13:15, 21 January 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.