Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Porteus


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Stanley Porteus

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:BIO for lack of coverage. Unclear if he meets WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Psychology, Australia,  and Hawaii. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 05:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, it's always difficult to establish whether people from previous centuries meet NPROF, when the definitions of named chairs have changed over the years, and publication habits are so different. I'd keep because I think the positions he held are analogous to a named chair, satisfying NPROF. But also from the reader's perspective, this is valuable background information for the Porteus Maze test, but putting in too much of the background of the inventor would, I think, detract from the article on his invention. Yes, it'd be really good to have more sourcing, but that's the perennial difficulty with pre-internet academics, and I hate the idea of losing everything that happened before 1980! Elemimele (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I am finding a wealth of sources with a search of google books. I have expanded the article today with information from the Australian Dictionary of Biography and The Professional Life and Work of Stanley D. Porteus: A Report on the Proposed Renaming of Porteus Hall, which was previously included as an external link. The article as nominated certinaly needed (and still needs) additional sources and could use some reorganization.  It could use a far more detailed and nuanced discussion of his work and the blatantly racist and eugenicist nature of it, as well as the continued use of the Maze test today.  However, the sources are out there.  Someone just needs to do the work. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 21:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was extremely surprised to see someone at AfD who a) has a still-used method named after them, b) had a building named after them, and c) got news coverage about their racist/eugenicist work that prompted the building being renamed, but I didn't have time to find sources earlier. Thanks to ONUnicorn for doing that work. It's clear he passes both WP:NBIO and WP:NPROF. -- asilvering (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 14:49, 22 February 2023 (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.