Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Roe (psychologist)


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Chris Roe (psychologist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article lacks quality independent sources and Roe doesn't appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC. Many memberships and such, but none seem like they are highly selective/prestigious/major institutions. The Journal of the Society for Psychical Research doesn't appear to be a a major, well-established academic journal.

This article was created by a promotional sockfarm. See Sockpuppet investigations/Kspellskarthik Grayfell (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete no indication of meeting notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. 4 refs of a very I do my job nature. No indication of notability in the article but didn't google to check. Szzuk (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  18:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Professors in the sense used in UK are almost invariably notable. His status is confirmed by his university webpage Psychic research/parapsychology is an esoteric subject, but it exists. An output of 60 academic papers is not inconsiderable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That profile refers to him as a "Senior Lecturer" (comparable to an associate professor in North America), which indicates that the term "professor" is being used in a much broader sense, and should not be treated the same as the older, more prestigious usage. Additionally, being prolific isn't automatically noteworthy, as specifically mentioned by WP:ACADEMIC. Grayfell (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Reading the article, I mostly get a sense of WP:PUFFERY items that don't strongly contribute to notability under WP:ACADEMIC. Being president of the Parapsychological Association is also a red flag in terms of WP:FRINGE. Multiple high level board positions can in sum contribute to notability, but that aspect is relatively weak with this subject. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.