Deletion of Douglas Berger

Comment: Again, the notability of the references is purely your own opinion. Fiction is not at all the same as non-fiction. Again, just because some other person doesn't have an article here doesn't mean they or this guy shouldn't, and the relative crappiness or podunkness of the institutions they might work for is also irrelevant. And since you want to further comment on  my exact words were "could be marginally construed as." You are not just a voter, you are the nominator here are you not? Also it is not required for me or anyone else to explain to your satisfaction why this guy is  more notable than some person who is not and consequently has no article written about them. The significance of the body of work is self evident
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: Coverage in Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources|secondary sources; there is none.  |Notability is not inherited.  He might have published in notable publications, but that doesn't mean ''he'' is notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: The articles in Douglas_Berger#Major_contributions_to_the_field_of_psychiatry|Major contributions to the field of psychiatry alone make this person notable. The "prestige" or "notability" of the journals used as references is irrelevant and purely a matter of opinion. Lists of other persons that don't have articles written about them are not good arguments for deletion. The fact that a related article has been nominated for deletion is not relevant here, and the nominator here has voted for deletion of the other article. This could be marginally construed as a conflict of interest. The nominator needs more familiarity with "how academia works" particularly as pertains to the field of psychology. Secondary sources would certainly add to the artcle, but are not absolutely necessary for its existence. Further it may be decades after the death of the subject that secondary sources become available in large numbers. Some may exist now and are just not in the list. I certainly wouldn't go out on a limb and claim they don't exist. Further, the non-existence of wiki articles about the referenced journals is also hardly relevant. There are uncountable subjects in very specialized fields that there are no wiki articles on. Authors in specialized fields probably spend a lot more time working in professional, peer reviewed journals than they do writing about journals for wikipedia. As to , an easily applied criteria here is "The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: and since you're bringing up  (which I think you need to read through more thoroughly if you think voting on two related AfD constitutes conflict of interest), it's worthwhile to point out that this article was created by the same |single purpose account as the related article on one of Berger's theories, an editor who has ONLY edited the Berger and Berger-theory article, so I don't think it's totally unreasonable to wonder if this isn't a vanity create by Berger himself.  Just because someone says their contributions to the field are "major" doesn't mean anything
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:SPA)