Talk:Robert E. Valett

Original article Request

 * Dr. Robert E. Valett (1927-2008) req:3rdFeb2017 - Psychologist. Creator of the Valett Inventory of Critical Thinking Abilities (VICTA). Author of numerous books on learning disabilities and humanistic motivational posters for schools. Recipient of the distinguished psychologist award from the San Joaquin Psychological Association and was a past president of the California Association of School Psychologists. Professor emeritus of special education at California State University, Fresno, where he taught from 1970 to 1992. Obituary: https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=31834591

(Totally irrelevant & cringeworthy side note for a potential editor - he indirectly saved my life as a young, young child and I wanted to write his entry as a tribute but I can't grammar. Thanks in advance and! Hugs forward.)
 * Comment By RCP, I will create this article, have already begun researching, and have begun a sandbox for it, but am investigating into notability. The last thing I want to do is create a work only to have it A10d. Should be done in ~ a month. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there a process to pre-check a person for Notability?
I don't want to write an article on a psychologist who won awards and wrote many books and taught psychology, only to have some gung-ho deletionists A10 it. Are there some users I can go to, or is there a process to get peoples opinions? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello . I'm not aware of a formal venue for doing that, but you can always ask for opinions here at the Teahouse! Who are you thinking of writing an article about? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Hi L3X1 I am one of those gung ho deletionists, I guess, if by that you mean people who care about an encyclopedia having encyclopedic articles with encyclopedic content, by enforcing basic rules that keep Wikipedia an encyclopedia and not some other kind of place. If reliable (mainstream newspaper articles, non-vanity books, magazines, scholarly journals, television and radio documentaries, etc. – sources with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) secondary and independent sources have written about the person in substantive detail (not just "mere mentions"; think generally at least two paragraphs of text focused on the topic), and you check first that those types of sources exist, and then you write the article by summarizing what those sources verify, citing those sources as you go (without copying their words, and writing in a just the facts neutral style), you will be successful and the article will not be deleted, though I do suggest you write it through the Articles for creation process. If, on the other hand, you don't first check for the existence of those types of sources, or you do check and they don't exist, don't bother, because an encyclopedic article cannot be written. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you :) I was thinking of Robert E Valett, the deceased psychologist. It came up when I accepted this [|review] for it, and a quick Google search showed that he existed, did things, and that there at least a few sources. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 00:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , the process for checking an academic for notability is rather different from that for checking people in other walks of life. The first step is to look at the number of cites on Google Scholar, as a convincingly large number automatically confers notability. In the case of Robert E Valett, his highest cite index is 83, which I personally would take as a go-ahead; however, there are some discipline-dependent variations in citation frequency (I believe), so you might want to get a better-informed opinion on that. Second green light is if the person holds/held a named professorial chair in the USA, or a full professorship in countries like Australia and the UK where "professor" is an important title reserved for the head of department; I don't immediately see that Valett fulfils this. After that, you can do the usual: compile a list of 5 or 6 fully reliable independent sources about him, and check that at least two cover him in some depth. I suppose I have to add that any page about someone who has published a Spiritual Guide to Holistic Health and Happiness is likely to be treated with a good deal more circumspection than one on someone who's written about, say, gas chromatography. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Opinions on pre creation
I'm nearly done, would any of you like to give me feedbakc on the article? Thanks.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 04:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It all looks fine to me, . Valett is clearly notable and I think it would be very unlikely to be deleted. Good job! –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Notability?
The list of this man's books suggests that he was a level-headed psychologist who, near/at the end of his career, suddenly turned to "New Age" woo. Yet we're told:


 * Notable work | Spiritual Guides to Holistic Health and Happiness

This surprises me. But of course I'm willing to believe it. However, the article doesn't start to persuade me: It says nothing whatever about this title, other than that it was published.

So for starters: In whose judgement was it that this was/is his most notable work? (I tried looking elsewhere, but not a single Wikipedia article appears to mention Valett.) In what way was/is it said to be notable?

Incidentally, here is the book's cover. I suspect that Justlettersandnumbers's reservations (above) are justified. -- Hoary (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)