Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William V. Chambers

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William V. Chambers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person does not seem to meet WP:Notable. No secondary sources are provided and I couldn't find out anything through Google other than a few mentions. BayShrimp (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - per nom.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What would be needed here are independent reliable sources that demonstrate a significant impact (see WP:NACADEMIC). I see lots of journal articles (including the Group Psychological Abuse Scale article he co-authored, which is cited a number of times elsewhere - but 70 cites doesn't help meet any of the Notability criteria), but no significant independent coverage of him and his achievements. --Tgeairn (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the Group Psychological Abuse Scale is what's notable wouldn't it be better to have an article on that? BayShrimp (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds sensible. There doesn't appear to be much written about the author, but the Scale does appear in numerous works. Zambelo; talk 11:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I don't see much proof of notability, but WP:PROF is relevant here--Randykitty, DGG, can I ask you to have a look? Deor, do I remember correctly that you used to assess profs as well? Drmies (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete His most cited publication ,his "[HTML] The Group Psychological Abuse Scale: A measure of the varieties of cultic abuse" is cited only 73 times, That's not significant in the field. DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete His citation record is modest. While that does not prove non-notability (not something that can be proven, I think), it does not point to notability either. I don't know the mentioned awards, if they are major, that could change things, but actually I doubt it. I judge the scale only moderately notable, too, given that his article on it has been cited only around 70 times. --Randykitty (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.