Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Perloff

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 of the debate was Keep. Enochlau 05:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Perloff

looks ike a vanity article. someones even added {{vanity}} to the bottom of it. BL kiss the lizard 07:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC) ok ill withdraw it. i was fooled by the vanity tag. he seems legit after all. BL kiss the lizard 11:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as vanity. B.Wind 07:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC) Article didn't indicate noteworthiness; additional evidence does...Keep. B.Wind 11:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not appear to pass the average professor test. Does not appear in Marquis Who's Who or the standard biographical databases. Gamaliel 08:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Apparently there was a database hiccup, as it appears Perloff is actually in Who's Who, and has been as often as Robert Novak. My apologies. Gamaliel 09:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The former President of the American Psychological Association is non-notable? I started this entry after finding a red link in an article, probably on intelligence. I have no connection to him, and I believe this guy passes all sorts of notability tests as described Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies/Academics here. This stub seems to need expansion, not deletion. I'm a little baffled by the deletionist zeal in this category. Jokestress 08:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The library here (Sydney University) has three copies of his book, which suggests that that publication alone is notable enough to warrant an article. -- Danny Yee 09:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I moved the inappropriate vanity tag to the user's talk page, which is where it's supposed to go. By the way, what is the "average professor test"? I tried a Google search limited to www.marquiswhoswho.com and a direct attempt at http://www.marquiswhoswho.net/robertperloff and got nothing either way, but neither could I find Robert Novak in this manner, and he's certainly notable. What other standard bio DBs do we use? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• As per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies#Alternative_tests: "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor...they can and should be included."
• I've never been to the Who's Who website, I access Who's Who online through my library. Robert Novak has appeared at least the last fifteen editions of Who's Who.
• My personal standard search is to run a search through the databases offered by my library, which searches dozens of standard reference works and directories. A full list can be found here. Gamaliel 09:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I just added references and links to two of the most significant collective statements put out by the field of psychology regarding race and intelligence. Perloff was involved in both and is widely considered one of the foremost experts on intelligence research. I remain puzzled that there is even a debate about Perloff's inclusion. Seems like a no-brainer. Jokestress 09:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I am puzzled that if he is one of the foremost experts on intelligence research, why isn't it a simple matter to find a reference to him that says "Perloff is considered one of the foremost experts in intelligence research"? Gamaliel 09:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The guy was one of 11 experts chosen by his peers to write one of the key consensus statements in the field, and one of only three people to sign both this and the Gottfredson summary. [1] [2] [3] Jokestress 09:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm convinced, but I still think the article should do a better job of reflecting his importance. Gamaliel 10:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Notability established. CalJW 10:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep APA presidents are notable enough. Grutness...wha? 10:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as per Jokestress. Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 10:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. He's 1 of 11 APA 1996 Intelligence Task Force members and turns out to be in Who's Who after all (both good), but every other thing about him seems to be damning with faint praise (2 Amazon academic publications [4] [5] with no sales rank; 1 of 113 past APA presidents, which change each year; 1 of 50 signatories to "Mainstream Science on Intelligence"; web-posted articles in letters to the editor and local newspapers; interviewing Kenneth B. Clark on racism; etc.) I've voted down articles on websites, music groups, and other people with better evidence, but I concede that we can favor academics because Wikipedia values published information, and Perloff clearly has been a source of significant published information. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. C'mon, a president of the APA!? What's wrong with the nominator? (and generally with this anti-academic bias in nominations). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There's no reason to make this personal. Gamaliel 20:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I was being rhetorical in my question. But OK, I'll strike out the part you might think is personal. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. -- DS1953 05:40, 29 November 2005 (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.