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. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 06:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Krajden (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)

Article was improved upon a little bit more since prior AFD. Bringing back to AFD for a community reassessment and discussion post the changes to the page. Procedural nom. No opinion on notability expressed by nomination to AFD itself. -- Cirt (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Msrasnw (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Evidence of notability for passing WP:Prof is indicated by Web of science which lists 150 published items by Krajden which have been cited a total of 3,523 times and calculates a h-index of 26. (Accessed Nov 2010). Also use by Health Canada as an expert and use by National Media of him as an expert. All seem well cited.(Msrasnw (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep Agree with above. The Eskimo (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep per Msrasnw academic index assessment.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. GS cites are 1590, 1126, 149.... h index = 27. Although this is a highly cited field WP:Prof#C1 is clearly satisfied. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Appears notable by WP:ACADEMIC because of the large number of articles and citations at Google Scholar. --MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 20 November 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.