The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep . Anybody who wishes to take responsibility is free to mainspace it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Daniel Weinberger[edit]

Tagged as a "promising draft" so has already lasted far longer than a rejected abandoned AfC submission normally lasts. The subject shows no indication of meeting WP:PROF with the best possible case coming from winning the K.J. Zulch Neuroscience Prize Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless I am confusing him for someone else his h-index is approximately 180, with a number of papers having been cited thousands of times.[1] Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the same person, same field. That info is not in the draft but that high an H index can pass prof. Legacypac (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This actually is a Promising Draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mainspace. Perfection is not required, notable and sourced. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second *Mainspace vote and a reminder to AFD nominators not to nominate articles that they are unsure about. Egaoblai (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mildly, why not? I sometimes AfD things I'm not certain about, due to lack of familiarity with the topic area or being unable to decide if the sourcing is strong enough. Sometimes people agree that the thing should be deleted and it is. Sometimes they disagree and it winds up improved and kept. The whole point of XfD is to prompt discussion, and as long as the nom isn't doing it with the intent of being POINTy or wasting time, there's nothing wrong with asking for others' opinions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because while it may be done in a good faith attempt to generate a discussion, It's not the intent of this platform. Deleting an article is a serious thing on this Wiki and should be the very last course of action, not something taken lightly or done on a whim or gut instinct. WP:BEFORE offers some suggestions for things people can do if they are unsure about a page. On a simply administrative ground, nominators are required to give a reason for the AFD, if not the post can be closed with a procedural speedy. Perhaps there should be a Articles for Discussion platform where these kind of discussions can happen, without the threat of deletion looming over the discussion.Egaoblai (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Pinging @Tryptofish:, whose area of expertise seems to cover this.If it isn't, grant that I seem to have gone crazy.....~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination is correct. He fails WP:PROF on the face of he draft. The H index info is new info and should be added to the page which will strengthen it's case for PROF. Making it through MfD will also insulate the editor that mainspaces this from criticism for promoting what appears to be an inclusion criteria failing topic as the page sits now. Legacypac (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As much as I wish to disagree with Egalobai, that's a non-starter.Deletion is typically a last resort and shall be independent of the current quality of the draft.I'm not saying that you need to make gargantuan efforts to find sourcing et al but a minimal check of the concerned guidelines is expected.At any case, I hope this's one of the few errors, from your end.....~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a declined abandoned AfC submission. There is no indicated reason for the Promising Draft template. I'm ok with mainspacing it based on H index being addedd but otherwise he fails PROF. Legacypac (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace per Calliopejen1 and SmokeyJoe; thanks for the detailed check and !votes. VQuakr (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Calliopejen1. MFD was a wise decision: there was indeed no reason for the disruptive ((Promising draft)). When someone's dumped a disruptive template onto an article, preventing deletion as ordinary, it's quite reasonable to bring it here, and were there no more information than what's already in the article, deletion would be entirely warranted. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most full professors at Johns Hopkins (as the draft indicated) are likely to be notable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2018 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.