Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Wood (psychologist and writer)


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 00:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Robert Wood (psychologist and writer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced BLP. Notability not clearly asserted in the article. Created by a user with the same name as the article, which may point at self-promotion. With references that make the biographical information verifiable this may become eligible for inclusion. Kurepalaku (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete As far as I can tell, this fails WP:ACADEMIC. He has Google Scholar links but none go so far as to show that he made "a significant impact". czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep seems clearly notable as an author, but we need to look for reviews. FWIW, WP:Author is much less demanding a criterion than WP:PROf, one of our many inconsistencies.  DGG ( talk ) 09:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * DGG, you have far more than enough experience of how Wikipedia works to know that just saying "seems clearly notable", without giving any evidence, will not carry enough weight. As for the absurd inconsistency between different specific notability guidelines, this was inevitable once special groups of people started fragmenting the notability criteria by setting up lots of separate guidelines for different topics. In the early days of Wikipedia it was much simpler, more consistent, easier to understand, and, in short, better all round: Substantial coverage in reliable independent sources = notable, otherwise = not. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course I said that evidence would be needed, and here it is:
 * for WP:PROF, his honorary D Litt from Nottingham. As for citations, his book Competency-based recruitment and selection was cited 133 times in GScholar, "The relation of self-efficacy and grade goals to academic performance" has 208 citations;"Test scoring, item statistics, and item factor analysis" has 176; " Competency-based recruitment and selection" has 133; "Five decades of item response modeling" has 103; "Fitting the Rasch model—a heady tale" has 62; "Development and psychometric properties of the Children's Assertive Behavior Scale" 56; (more forthcoming Google shut me down for overusing google scholar--more coming when the let me in again.)
 * for WP:AUTHOR, his collected papers Measurement and assessment in education and psychology : collected papers, 1967-87  is in over 300 academic libraries, as is his book, How to succeed at an assessment centre     Two of his books, Assessment and testing : a survey of research   and Competency-based recruitment and selection. have been translated into Chinese.     One, Test your emotional intelligence has been translated into both Chinese and Polish
 * But what i said usually proves wp:author is book reviews, --my previous comment was just a quick note until I found them, Assessment and Testing: A Survey of Research was reviewed in British Journal of Educational Studies, Feb., 1992, vol. 40, no. 1, p. 91-92 and in Educational Research Volume 34 Number 2 Summer 1992; Measurement and Assessment in Education and Psychology was reviewed in European Journal of Education, 1987, vol. 22, no. 3/4, p. 363-365; (more coming) DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the reason we don't use the simplified guideline you mention is that for academics, it would m=be met by any 2 papers of a scientist receiving significant discussion by any two other papers. There isnt a single university associate professor in the us or uk that wouldn't be able to show that. Sometimes what seems like common sense gives a result that is much too broad (or narrow). DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In reply to James, the history of inclusion guidelines is nothing like that that you present. In the early days of Wikipedia there was no concept of notability, but inclusion was simply based on the core content policies of verifiability, neutrality and no original research. Then various informal guidelines were introduced about particular topics, and only later was the general notability guideline created. Too many people seem to regard the general notability guideline as one of the founding principles of Wikipedia, rather than as a pragmatic guideline to help us decide what articles to include when the question is not otherwise clear. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sources


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete this completely unsourced autobiographical puff piece. Qworty (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep on basis of evidence produced by DGG. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC).
 * Comment. I have removed the inline external links to amazon.com pages for purchasing his books. Also, sources DGG finds should be added to the article if they are relevant, as it stands the article reads as self-promotion. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The immediate improvement of the article is not a prerequisite of keeping it. Our task at AfD is to decide whether the subject is notable, not whether the article is complete. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Unsourced BLP. -- Patchy1 00:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve - Per the extensive, well-researched rationale presented above by User:DGG. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per availability of references provided by DGG. Celtechm (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Adding to what  DGG has offered, notability for academics is also conventionally assessed by book holdings from WorldCat. Wood's holdings are appreciable, for example: How to succeed at an assessment centre (>600), Competency-based recruitment and selection (>300), Measurement and assessment in education and psychology (>300), etc. Agricola44 (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
 * Delete very nearly unsourced BLP and promotional autobiography. Involvement of known covert paid editors.   If we don't have biographical coverage of the subject, it doesn't matter if he's won 15 Pulitzers.  We can't have an article that is verifiable without coverage.  Delete per WP:TWOPRONGS, WP:BLP, WP:V and common sense. Gigs (talk) 17:23, 9 November 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.