Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard William Paul


 * 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. Secret account 18:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Richard William Paul

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article probably does not meet any of the notability criteria in WP:GNG

It seems to be a small independent paid service (management or HR) for universities to contract, of the size and economic scope of a cafeteria service or taxi service.

The person that the article is about does have a PhD in his subject, I'm not sure if someone having a PhD makes that person notable or not, probably not.

Createangelos (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, here is a sort of argument against the deletion which I'm recommending, the guy's website criticalthinking.org does have some nice writing on it by his staff or collaborators such as

"The enlightened person may well be perplexed: Where, in this mission statement, is the concept of education? Is “success in college and careers” to be equated with educating the mind? Is developing the ability to “compete successfully in the global economy” the same as cultivating  minds capable of reasoning in good faith within multiple perspectives? How does this core  curriculum integrate critical thinking, education, and the deep learning of content? How will this  curriculum help students develop the intellectual virtues that define the ethical, or fairminded,  critical thinker – virtues such as intellectual empathy, intellectual integrity, intellectual  autonomy, intellectual humility, intellectual perseverance, confidence in reason and  fairmindedness? To what extent are these virtues desired (or feared) by the business  community, educators, parents? Is the Core Curriculum compatible with emancipating the mind,  liberating people, and making the world more just for all humans and other sentient creatures? Have we so lost our way as to believe that the cultivation of the intellect is to be equated with developing “thinking skills” that simply help people function better as workers?"

(end quote) Createangelos (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

For example something like this article from 'riffwiki' whatever it is, would be nice in Wikipedia, but the problem is, it is like an ad http://riffwiki.com/Foundation_for_Critical_Thinking These critical thinking guys seem to need some help, they have some good ideas, but using Wikipedia as a marketing tool is not one of them. Maybe a small article which actually describes the organization or how it defines 'critical thinking' might be OK. It might be notable that several universities believe it, whatever it is, it it can be described or characterised by anyone who actually understands it. Createangelos (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I fixed up the AfD page. ansh666 22:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * delete no real evidence for notability besides that his organization has sold his program to a few minor universities and colleges. . DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable regional academic person. COI suspected in article-creation: originally written by a 1-subject (this one) account. Note that the subject's own website is called CriticalThinking.org and the article original writer is a user named: Think-Critical. looks like self-promotional autobiography. Cramyourspam (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Do not delete- I'm not sure if any of those calling for deletion have any knowledge about the subject, but Richard Paul is an acknowledged leader and innovator in the field of Critical Thinking. (and no, I am not a relative or paid by them to say this). He is cited in most of the scholarly articles in education relating to critical thinking that I have read. He is an innovator because the Paul/Elder theory on Critical thinking encompasses a humanistic component ( strong minded vs weak minded thinking) that was never discussed prior. While his work might not be recognizable to those not actively engaged in the field, anyone taking the time to actually reading his work, must be impressed, for it is incredibly well thought out and enlightening. (neefly)
 * neefly, strange as it sounds, much of your impassioned defense of Richard William Paul is irrelevant in the wonderful world of Wikipedia. "incredibly well thought out and enlightening" doesn't matter. "acknowledged leader and innovator in the field of Critical Thinking" doesn't matter, except to the degree it causes him to receive mention/citations elsewhere. However, "He is cited in most of the scholarly articles in education relating to critical thinking that I have read" is more important. See my separate comment below. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. If I search google scholar for "RW Paul" instead of "Richard William Paul", a lot of hits pop out, with citation counts in the hundred, even up to just over 1,000. I'm not familiar enough with WP:NACADEMICS to know if this meets notability requirements. Aynone out there who can enlighten me? --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The page was set up by an SPA User:Think-Critical that shares a name with the organisation it promotes. As it stands, it's solely promoting this organisation. Delete and if he's notable as an academic, someone will undoubtedly set up a new page for him at a different time. AdventurousMe (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent coverage in reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - there are zero secondary sources in the article, so he'd fail WP:GNG and WP:42. He's not cited widely in the leading undergraduate textbooks. (See: John Chaffee, Thinking Critically (9th ed.), ISBN 978-0-618-94719-5; Brooke Noel Moore and Richard Parker, Critical Thinking (10th ed.), ISBN 978-0-07-803828-0; Peter Facione, THINK Critically, ISBN 978-0-295-73845-8.  He is cited once, in end-note 1 from page 2, of Hassham, Irwin, Nardone, and Wallace, Critical Thinking: A Student's Introduction (4th ed.) ISBN 978-0-07-340743-2.  I don't think that allows him to pass the PROF test; however, if you can find additional evidence, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2014 (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.