- 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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 17:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
David Marks (psychologist)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- David Marks (psychologist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:PROF Vanity page for a dubious parapsychologist, originally written by the subject himself. Very little to suggest any notability within.the scientific field. Most references are to his own published works, mostly in low impact/open access journals. Little Professor ( talk) 13:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Little Professor ( talk) 13:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal, Psychology, and England. Skynxnex ( talk) 15:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I think he might easily pass the WP:Prof test based on publications. His 1973 Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures in the British Journal of Psychology seems to be cited according to GS by around 2300 and there are multiple other articles in this journal, and others, with high citation scores (100+). ( Msrasnw ( talk) 14:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC))
- Keep per Mrasnw:
VVIQ has proved an essential tool in the scientific investigation of mental imagery as a phenomenological, behavioral and neurological construct
. That's significant impact.
- In addition, Marks is a Fellow (FBPsS) [1] of the British Psychological Society.
- I need to note that "dubious parapsychologist" is a massive mischaracterization of Marks's skeptical work on parapsychology. Paradoctor ( talk) 03:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment only I suggest editors who want to comment on whether or not this article should be deleted should look at the
previous AfD, as there are some relevant contributions.
Schwede
66 09:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. What there is is either obsolete, superseded, outdated, irrelevant, or wrong. Paradoctor ( talk) 13:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:NACADEMIC for being a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and WP:ANYBIO for having an entry in Gale's Contemporary Authors. 5Q5| ✉ 15:07, 5 March 2024 (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.
- 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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 17:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
David Marks (psychologist)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- David Marks (psychologist) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:PROF Vanity page for a dubious parapsychologist, originally written by the subject himself. Very little to suggest any notability within.the scientific field. Most references are to his own published works, mostly in low impact/open access journals. Little Professor ( talk) 13:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Little Professor ( talk) 13:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal, Psychology, and England. Skynxnex ( talk) 15:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I think he might easily pass the WP:Prof test based on publications. His 1973 Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures in the British Journal of Psychology seems to be cited according to GS by around 2300 and there are multiple other articles in this journal, and others, with high citation scores (100+). ( Msrasnw ( talk) 14:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC))
- Keep per Mrasnw:
VVIQ has proved an essential tool in the scientific investigation of mental imagery as a phenomenological, behavioral and neurological construct
. That's significant impact.
- In addition, Marks is a Fellow (FBPsS) [1] of the British Psychological Society.
- I need to note that "dubious parapsychologist" is a massive mischaracterization of Marks's skeptical work on parapsychology. Paradoctor ( talk) 03:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment only I suggest editors who want to comment on whether or not this article should be deleted should look at the
previous AfD, as there are some relevant contributions.
Schwede
66 09:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. What there is is either obsolete, superseded, outdated, irrelevant, or wrong. Paradoctor ( talk) 13:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:NACADEMIC for being a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and WP:ANYBIO for having an entry in Gale's Contemporary Authors. 5Q5| ✉ 15:07, 5 March 2024 (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.