Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Collins (psychiatrist)

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 delete. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 15:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Collins (psychiatrist)

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

Non-notable, autobiographical by WP:SPA Wunderkidding (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what is, effectively, a CV of a psychiatrist, albeit a successful and respected one in his field. He's quoted numerous times in news articles about court cases and other matters, but I can't find anything of any substance about him. The only slight chink of light is the 2009 article about his military service, but the article is conveniently a week before the newspaper's online archive begins. I would have thought that if the article was of any substance, it would have been used for more than one sentence in the Wikipedia article. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

since that article is syndicated by CanWest, my news archive search on "Peter Collins" + psychiatrist turned up copies in other newspapers, paywalled link [1] to the Edmonton Journal. It is, in fact, a long, detailed profile form which material can certainly be added to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, the article creator is far from an SPA, it's prolific resigned editor Jokestress. Per WP:BOOMERANG, if anyone's an SPA here it's the nominator, whose only other contributions were to add content on "Forensic department controversies" at Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, where Collins works. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Gsearches haven't turned up anything other than passing mentions -- but they do verify that the article subject is a recognized Canadian expert in his field, frequently called up for major investigations, court cases, etc. Yes, the article does at times read too much like a CV -- but it's been collectively edited by many editors over years and is in no way, shape or form the sole work of an SPA. Whereas the nominator seems to surface periodically to edit solely in a way that is critical of the CAMH or forensic psychiatry, unilaterally try to redirect this article, and so on. Weak delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. By "by WP:SPA," I meant the person who wrote most the content, not the person who created the article. Wunderkidding (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which I take it would be Lamplighter98/Lamplighter99 (two linked accounts, it seems) one of which reverted you? Still, this article isn't "by" him. And going back to 2009, this article has ebbed and flowed rather massively, as something of a magnet for edit warring, with numerous editors and IPs creating and removing a great deal of content. One of those Lamplighter accounts, at least, should be blocked. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported Lamplighter99 at SPI. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to have above average expertise in some areas of his field. But I fail to see his notability via press, etc. Knox490 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'll just add that User:Lamplighter99, the account that reverted the nominator's redirect, has now been blocked. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the profile in the National Post that is already in the article (and which an archive search shows to have been picked up by several other major Canadian newsapers]] there is this 1998 Globe and Mail article ("Ontario Provincial Police are moving into the field of forensic psychiatry in the fight against crime. The force has hired Dr. Peter Collins of Toronto's Clarke Institute of Psychiatry to manage its new forensic-psychiatry unit...."), (OPP hires psychiatrist The Globe and Mail; Toronto, Ont. [Toronto, Ont]22 Apr 1998: A.4. [2]); there are literally hundreds of separate articles over many years in which he is discussed in the context of having testified in high-profile cases, and many otheres where he is interviewed and quoted regarding high-profile crimes in which he is not participating as an expert witness, (here [3], for example, in the course of quoting hm at some length on the Anders Behring Breivik the National Post describes Collins as "Peter Collins, a consultant forensic psychiatrist to several police agencies, court-recognized expert on violent crime and an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto." He clearly is a prominent Canadian psychiatrist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, article should be reduced to what can be reliably sourced. I added his faculty bio as an external link. Note, however, that he appears to be a practitioner and a teacher, not primarily a researcher.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 22:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the single link in the article is a dead one; we almost always delete articles about Associate professors. If kept, the focus of the article needs to be as a talking head, and sourcing needs to reflect those "facts on the ground". Bearian (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2017 (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.