Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Harner

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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Harner

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

This article has "referenciness", but the references all turn out to have been written by the subject or his friends. It notes that "Information from 1980 onward is primarily drawn from the article "The History and Work of the Foundation for Shamanic Studies," Shamanism 18: 1&2 by permission of the Foundation for Shamanic Studies." Unfortunately, without this plainly conflicted material, the article itself pretty much vanishes and becomes a minor academic who fails WP:PROF. Guy (Help!) 20:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A GS h-index of 19 with some high cites in the area of religion (albeit pop religion) suffices to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete a GS h-index from a tiny citation-circle does not count as independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny? First GS hit has 907 cites! Xxanthippe (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. The fringe nature of his research topic does nothing to negate the clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 evident in his citation record. And (e.g. from hits describing him as a highly influential pioneer in this area in highbeam) he also appears to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 04:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- GreenC 03:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I can see at least a couple moderately reliable sources for this guy, and he does seem to have a considerable number of published works. Feel like a keep to me. NickCT (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the above. Google search suggests he's clearly well-known in his field, and apparently well-cited. I will note however that there seems to be much criticism of his work on the web which is not reflected in the article at all, suggesting a WP:SELFSOURCE and/or WP:NPOV issue. We should rectify this, but it's not criteria for deletion. Ivanvector (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2014 (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.