Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James A. Graham (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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 23:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

James A. Graham (psychologist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails each of nine criteria of WP:Notability (academics) Mayumashu (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Recuse myself - I'm an involved party, or close enough, with possible conflicts of interests.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is an unsourced BLP as currently written. No opinion as to notability. This is an academic, so those with expertise on the notability of such folks are called to opine. Carrite (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * uncertain He might qualify under WP:AUTHOR. His co-authored book The African American child : development and challenges is very widely held and had a positive review in CHOICE, an authoritative source for academic reviews WorldCat listing including the review; Children of incarcerated parents is also widely held, but he is only a co-editor. Developmental Science: An Introductory Approach is a very short introductory textbook. as for WP:PROF, tho a full professor, it's at a (very good) undergraduate college, not a research university.  DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. With a GS h-index of 4 (please correct if wrong) he fails WP:Prof and any other section of WP:Prof. Too early as yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC).
 * the h index is higher if one counts the books, but I agree about WP:PROF. The question is WP:AUTHOR, on the basis of the Choice review.  DGG ( talk ) 10:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  talk to me! 08:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep The name does get a reasonable amount of references in literature in psychology. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: per ACEOREVIVED - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The number of references in the psychology literature, as mentioned above by Xxanthippe, are woefully below anything sufficient to meet WP:PROF. As for WP:AUTHOR, I don't think that 1 review establishes notability under that guideline either. Finally, there's no indication at all that this meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. --Randykitty (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Question Gscholar is being problematic (name collisions, etc) on citations. Can the people discussing relative number of references in the literature give some more explanation as to how they arrived at their information? Ray  Talk 20:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My practice is to sort through GS citations counting only those that appear to be in the topic area of the subject. To be specific I found here 107, 58, 50, 15, 5. They start off well but don't go far. As I said - too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC).

I would agree that Google Scholar is problematic - in fact, I once knew a librarian at the University of Northampton who once said in my hearing that she would give her reasons for not using it. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BARE - author of an important book, and a full professor. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Keep This seems to be a borderline case. Citations, as Xxanthippe have noted, start off very well, but are not sustained. He has coauthored a book which is held in multiple libraries, but we've only found one independent review of it (after a bit of Googling around, Choice seems to be it), so we have an otherwise (borderline) NN academic who is the author of a book that just fails WP:BK. and the book is the subject of instruction at places other than his own school, and has received multiple reviews (Choice, and here in an APA journal).  Ray  Talk 19:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG, I cannot find any editorial coverage, only links to his own publications and university bios.--Nixie9 (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2012 (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.