Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Cline

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. Shimeru (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Cline

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

Simple advertisement for a physician. While he has published work, he does not appear notable. - Sinneed 16:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His first paper on Google Scholar[1] ("Desensitization of children to television violence", 1973) has been cited 181 times. This, I believe, indicates that the paper was quite important. Google links it to utah.edu, which seems to match up with the subject. Note, however, that Google lists a number of other papers by VB Cline which are too old to be by this author (e.g. "Accuracy of interpersonal perception: A general trait?", 1960, when the subject was only 10). If these are all by another VB Cline I would withdraw my keep vote. Pburka (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - clearly a published academic. This does not seem to speak to wp:notability, or every "publish or perish" academic would rate an article.- Sinneed 01:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said it was notable because it's been cited 181 times. In my experience that's quite an important paper. Although I must admit my experience with the social sciences is limited. Pburka (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : going by the guideline WP:GNG,

"Significant coverage" : We have publications spanning from 1950s, mentioned as a pioneer in 1970s[2], expert witness with US Judiciary Committee [3], and he has been cited as recently as 2007 etc.,
"Reliable" : There are plenty, around 600 hits on google books.[4]
"Sources" : Several scholarly sources and research articles cite him. Again see [5] and around 144 google scholar hits[6]
Similarly with "Independent of the subject" & remaining points.

Clearly satisfies Notability criteria. CryptoEd (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I removed the supposed 1950 birthdate from the article. It was unsourced, and as you say it doesn't make sense in light of the publication dates of some of these papers. His Ph.D. thesis, "The assessment of good and poor judges of personality using a stress interview and sound-film technique", appears to be dated 1953. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can confirm you that the 1950 is not his Date of birth. He received his PhD in 1953[7] as testified in court cases and hearings. CryptoEd (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has been widely cited, to narrow down the search I add an additional contextual term and searched google books[8]. He has been cited as an expert in this field and he also appeared before government commissions[9]. CryptoEd (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I didn't create the article as an "ad for a physician" but rather to show that his ideas have weight. I linked Pornography addiction to him. If he's not a notable source of ideas, then I'll have to go back to that article and change the link to a footnote ref. In general, it can be difficult to get ideas into articles, unless the source of the idea in sufficiently notable. This is especially so for ideas which run counter to the mainstream or to "Wikipedia consensus" (where the latter is less than solidly dedicated to neutrality). --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2010 (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.