Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Thalbourne


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Michael Thalbourne

 * – ( View AfD View log )

All the sources on this page involve Thalbourne, in other words, they're all primary sources. as this article lacks secondary sources to establish the notability, I vote it should be removed. Through a quick search, I also couldn't find any significant or notable secondary sources that talk about Michael Thalbourne. Megaman en m (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Megaman en m (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:Prof with 8 papers with over 100 citations on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC).
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Agree this passes PROF#C1, at the very least this should be redirected to Australian Sheep-Goat Scale, but I feel a bio is more appropriate here as there are several highly cited works. There are actually secondary reliable sources discussing Thalbourne's work, for instance: Anomalistic Psychology: Exploring Paranormal Belief and Experience (published by Palgrave Macmillan) has several pages (41 pages, many of them citations, but also several bits of prose) and Beyond Belief: Skepticism, Science and the Paranormal (Cambridge University Press) discusses his work in 5 prose pages (aside from citations), as well as coverage in Extrasensory Perception: Support, Skepticism, and Science (ABC-CLIO). There are over 80 full real hits (name actually in prose) for Thalbourne in google books, some of it is not reliable (as to be expected in this subject matter), but many of these are reliable publications. Thalbourne was on the scientific side of this subject matter, and he is also covered due to his bi-polar disorder (during his manic periods, Thalbourne himself would have experience visions). There is also a published obituary in a journal, another paywalled obit with different authors at another journal, a death notice at another journal. There is also the outstanding contribution award a year after his death in which there is a biography/obit (republished from the Mindfield Bulletin). A case could be made for GNG in addition to PROF#C1 which is sufficient.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 10:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added two published obituaries and two published book reviews to the article. I agree with the pass of WP:PROF discussed above, and these sources provide plenty of verifiable material to use as the basis of an article here. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. passes WP:NPROF per citation counts and the impact in his field. --hroest 21:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree the page satisfies WP:NPROF. Also keep per WP:Hey. Cabrils (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:Prof and WP:HEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2021 (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.