Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Psychology

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Psychology. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Psychology|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Psychology. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Science.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

See also: Behavioural science-related deletions


Psychology

[edit]

John W. DenBoer

[edit]
John W. DenBoer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined a WP:G4 tag on this, as the article appears to be somewhat different to the previous version deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John DenBoer; additionally, some comments at the previous AfD gave the impression this was a "not yet" instead of "not ever". However, other comments suggested this was a BLP nightmare. So, I think a fresh discussion is best. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Self mentoring

[edit]
Self mentoring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inappropriate tone, reads like a personal essay, orphan, topic seems reasonable as an article, but the article currently inappropriate for Wikipedia —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 09:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russell T. Warne

[edit]
Russell T. Warne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A bio of this person previously existed and was deleted back in 2021 per this AfD discussion. (The original title omitted the middle initial, so I'm not sure if this technically counts as a second nomination.) Looking over the sources, I'm not seeing any additional reliable, independent, significant coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG, nor any indication that this person satisfies the criteria of WP:PROF. The one reliable, independent source I’ve found discussing this person which has been published since the 2021 AfD is Ashley Smart, "In Genetics, a Tense Coexistence of Mainstream and Fringe Views" Undark (2025), but it only mentions the subject three times in passing, so I don’t think it counts as WP:SIGCOV. The creator of this recent version of the article has included two sources masquerading as independent coverage (this and this), but they are clearly labeled as press releases and potentially paid content, so are disqualified as WP:PROMO. Noting too, if we’re looking beyond GNG to the criteria of NACADEMIC, that this person appears to no longer hold a university affiliation. Without secondary sources giving us reason to think otherwise –– e.g. by speaking explicitly to the significance of this person’s contributions to scholarship –– this is prima facie evidence that they are not a notable academic. I’ve discussed these matters with the article’s creator here. Generalrelative (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychology, and Utah. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: His In the Know was reviewed by Noah Carl in The Critic here, by David Hambrick in Intelligence here, and in Academic Questions here. I can't see any reviews of his textbook. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for contributing to the discussion. Here's where it becomes relevant that the book in question argues for decidedly fringe positions on race and intelligence, and is thus supported by other pro-fringe advocates. That's not just my opinion; see this RfC. All three of these reviews are coming from within the walled garden on racial hereditarian fringe to which Warne belongs. We should rather be looking for WP:FRIND sources to establish notability.
    • The Critic source was discussed in the last AfD and at RSN. It doesn't seem to be reliable enough to confer notability, given Noah Carl's reputation.
    • The review in Intelligence does not satisfy independent because Warne was serving on the editorial board of that journal at the time, and in any cse we don't generally consider it reliable for claims related to race and intelligence.
    In short, neither of these reviews count as fringe-independent for our purposes, and points which are not supported by fringe-independent sources should not be given any space in articles.
    • I did see the Academic Questions review as well but then saw it is a publication of the rather deceptively named National Association of Scholars which advocates against multiculturalism, diversity policies, and against courses focused on race and gender issues, and was an advisor to Project 2025. It may be reliable for some things, though it's certainly a WP:BIASED source. The review's author Richard P. Phelps has published books advocating for some similar positions to Warne, though he does not overtly endorse Warne's position on race. I will leave it to others to determine whether this source should be considered reliable and independent enough to contribute to notability.
    Generalrelative (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In continuation of my previous analysis on my talk page, his book In the Know was reviewed by:

Intelligence - Reviewed by David Z. Hambrick. While Warne seems to have been on the editorial board at the time. But that's irrelevant. Editors have carte blanche over what books are reviewed in scholarly journals and who is selected as a reviewer. Editorial board members aren't involved in those things. The Critic Academic Questions In the Know has also spawned research on Warne's list of myths by independent researchers that has was published in the scholarly journal Personality and Individual Differences Contrary to what Generalrelative states, In the Know does not promulgate fringe theories. None of the reviews of the book mention that it contains fringe theories. Also, the book was published by Cambridge University Press, and academic publishers like Cambridge always subject their books to peer review. Warne has been cited as an authority on IQ and intelligence in the following media outlets: Trinidad Express Binah - 27 June 2022 issue Psychology Today (twice) New Scientist British Psychological Society Research Digest wrote two stories about Warne's work on intelligence that was published in APA journals. (At the time one of these articles was published, the study it discusses was not peer-reviewed. It was later published in Psychological Bulletin.) He has also been the topic of articles by other media outlets for his other work in psychology and education. U.S. News and World Report and PBS News quoted him because of his work on Advanced Placement classes (see also these two stories from local media outlets). Education Week published a story on one of his Advanced Placement studies. Retraction Watch has published three stories 1, 2, 3 about his research integrity work. He also had articles in MarketWatch (twice) and Forbes about a non-psychology study he published in a scholarly business journal. This is over 20 independent media outlets, many of them nationally or internationally renown, that have written stories about Warne's work or quoted him as an authority on education or psychology because of his scholarly work. This total does not include offhand mentions of him (such as in The Chronicle of Higher Education) or local media outlets near Utah Valley University, where he worked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce2023 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just specify that the major fringe claim in In the Know is what Warne describes as "Myth" #28: Racial/Ethnic Group IQ Differences Are Completely Environmental in Origin. The author argues that evidence exists indicating that racial and ethnic group difference in average IQ test performance are at least partially genetic in origin. This view has been unequivocally determined to be fringe, per Wikipedia's definition, here: Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 103#RfC on racial hereditarianism. The reviews don't mention that this view is fringe because the calls are coming from within the walled garden. For years we've been dealing with persistent disruption –– including promotion, trolling, and socking –– from proponents of this fringe view, which is why we need to be vigilant about subtle and even unintentional ways in which WP:PROFRINGE may enter into article space. I'll leave it to others to address the rest of the above comment (e.g. what we mean when we say a source is independent) if they choose. Generalrelative (talk) 21:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought maybe a google search on "Reasoning and Intelligence Online Test (RIOT)" might find some sources. Not a lot of luck. I did find [1] but it was just a press release. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non notable per independent sourcing. If he was notable there would be multiple academic reviews for his book in scholarly journals or newspapers. No independent academic wants to review this guys work because he is associated with the far-right Human Diversity Foundation who funded one of his papers. It should also be noted that Warne has co-authored a book with several white supremacists including Jordan Lasker who self identifies as a neo-Nazi and another co-author who is a holocaust denier. This book was published by a predatory publisher Cambridge Scholars Publishing so that should tell you enough about Warne's research. Whilst some far-right "race" researchers are obviously notable and would pass Wikipedia criteria, Warne isn't. Bottom line is that independent sourcing is lacking to establish a neutral article. Also see a similar problem at Curtis Dunkel. Veg Historian (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a biased approach to judge something. We can debate on notability instead of their personal views. In this case, all neo-nazi pages should be removed. Bruce2023 (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cambridge Scholars isn't predatory, but it doesn't have a great reputation. But let's be clear that Warne, whatever any of our views about his any of his views, has published two books with Cambridge University Press, which is very highly regarded. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cambridge University Press is highly regarded but this does not establish notability for Warne because there are no valid reviews published in academic journals covering his book. As far as I am aware there is only a single book review published in a journal for Warne and this was written by a friend of his David Z. Hambrick in a journal that has a sadly damaged its reputation by publishing pseudoscience (Intelligence (journal). This was not an independent review because Warne was serving on the editorial board of the journal at the time. I have written 100s of Wikipedia articles and I always cite book reviews for all sorts of academics but none exist here. This means there is a lack of independent sourcing to establish a good article. Do you not find it suspicious that no academic wants to write a book review for this guy? It tells us he is not notable. If he is notable why is no academic out there reviewing his work? The walled garden suggestion above is very valid here. Veg Historian (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say that publishing a book with CUP automatically makes someone notable. I just think we need to be careful about dismissing the subject's work. We can argue about whether the book reviews count as 'independent' (that's a complicated question...) but it's emphatically not the case that no book reviews exist; it's bizarre that you'd claim that in the same comment where you mention people reviewing his books. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is only one peer-reviewed book review for Russell Warne and it was written by a personal friend of his in a dodgy journal he served on the editorial board of. This means the review is invalid per COI reasons. I am not sure how we could cite that review without running into NPOV problems, it would be biased editing which is against policy. It is not an independent review. I am always open to new evidence and will change my vote to keep if there was 2, 3 or 4 independent book reviews but sadly none exist. In 4 or 5 years he might be notable but right now I do not think anything has changed since the last deletion discussion. Veg Historian (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I did find this: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=FcLTdd8AAAAJ&hl=en Not convinced, though. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing from WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR seems to apply, and there isn't enough independent coverage of the person for WP:GNG. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just in case there's any misunderstanding about my comment. NPROF/NAUTHOR/GNG are not about the nature of his work, but the lack of secondary sources about him or his work. The nature and content of his work really isn't important. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whenever someone makes the mistake of thinking that we delete or keep articles based on the quality of the thing the article is about, I point them to our article on Saving Christmas. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha! That is indeed, ironically, a very good article :) Generalrelative (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Looks like some comments are just to add a delete with no solid reasoning. Well, here is my further analysis and answer based on the discussion above. The chapter in question, “Racial/Ethnic Group IQ Differences Are Completely Environmental in Origin”, is 1 of 35 chapters. But, just to check whether his book was propagating fringe theories, I bought the e-book version and read that chapter, and I compared the reasons given in the discussion about why that is a fringe theory. Warne's chapter is in line with the FAQ page that came out of that discussion:
  • Warne agrees with the FAQ's viewpoint on the nature of racial/ethnic groups. For example, Warne rejects race essentialism and agrees with the FAQ that no single trait or group of genes defines a person's "race" (p. 248-249). He also acknowledges the social nature of these categories (p. 250) and the history of human groups' genetic mixing (p. 249).
  • He also states multiple times in the chapter (p. 250-251, 252, 262) that within-group heritability cannot be extrapolated to between-group heritability, a view that the FAQ endorses.
  • Warne agrees that the molecular genetics does not exist to show a causal relationship between group membership and intelligence (p. 256-257).
  • Warne also agrees that the evidence that proponents of a link between race and IQ is often equivocal (p. 258), and he points out the weaknesses of every line of evidence that the race-and-IQ people use to support their theories.

Generally, Warne's ideas in the chapter are more in line with the FAQ than not. After reading the chapter, I felt like there were hints of evidence that race and IQ might have some sort of link but that strong claims about genes influencing racial group differences in intelligence was not there. The idea that the book and Warne's work only exists in a "walled garden" is not true. According to Cambridge University Press, all books that they published are peer reviewed. CUP is clearly not a fringe outlet existing in a "walled garden." Also, Warne seems to have published a similar piece in The American Journal of Psychology, which is major psychology journal. Finally, the journal Personality and Individual Differences published the peer-reviewed article on Warne's "myths" (including the relationship between race and IQ) after their retraction of an article by J. Philippe Rushton on race and behavioral differences and their expressions of concern on Hans Eysenck's work. Warne's views on this delicate topic clearly are passing peer review outside of the "walled garden." This controversial topic seems to be a small part of his work anyway. Most of his research is on test development, test validity, giftedness, Advanced Placement, and intelligence theory. It looks like most of Warne's work isn't problematic at all.Bruce2023 (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • ’Comment’ Just because someone has published with Cambridge University Press does not mean they pass WP:N at Wikipedia. I have an upcoming book coming out. If Cambridge University Press published my book would that automatically qualify me for a Wikipedia article? Obviously not! Just because Cambridge University Press is peer reviewed does not establish WP:NPROF. We need WP:SIGCOV. As other users have explained there is a lack of independent sourcing here. I would change my mind if you could show me several peer-reviewed reviews of his book. But of course these do not exist. If we did have decent reviews this deletion discussion would not be taking place. Veg Historian (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not ONLY about Cambridge University Press there are other things as well in question and I don't want to compare but many pages here on Wikipedia lacks GNG notability and I will highlight them and will see how you judge those pages. Also, I'm sure Cambridge University Press won't publish any book they have certain criteria Bruce2023 (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request, If admins think this should be deleted please draftify instead. I will see what I can do further otherwise, I will create a new page for new subjects, people and places. Thanks Bruce2023 (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: does it matter if someone used to hold a university affiliation but no longer does? Lots of academics retire to private industry. I think writing textbooks is noteworthy. Even if all of Warne’s claims were debunked, I don’t think that would itself mean he shouldn’t have an article. — Daviddwd (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you identify which criteria of our notability guideline support your assessment? Generalrelative (talk) 14:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He has to have met ACADEMIC at one point to get an article, simply working at the university isn't enough. A high citation factor, chair of a department, editor of a large peer-reviewed journal, those are what we look at. Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I need to research this before I vote keep or delete, but I was struck by something stated above. User:Generalrelative made the comment: "I'll just specify that the major fringe claim in In the Know is what Warne describes as "Myth" #28: Racial/Ethnic Group IQ Differences Are Completely Environmental in Origin. The author argues that evidence exists indicating that racial and ethnic group difference in average IQ test performance are at least partially genetic in origin. This view has been unequivocally determined to be fringe, per Wikipedia's definition, here: Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 103#RfC on racial hereditarianism.” I want to make sure I understand the RFC. Is the RFC essentially stating that racial and ethnic group difference in average IQ test performance is 100% environmental/cultural and that any view to the contrary is fringe? Or is it clarifying that currently there is no way of empirically testing for a direct genetic contribution, hence it is a fringe claim to state the extent to which it exists? (when it is more accurate to say that scientific consensus agrees that differences are not 100% environmental in origin, where they disagree is exactly how much the other component is due to genetics) In other words, I am unaware of any modern scientific consensus stating that population differences in IQ are purely 100% environmental. Even on wikipedia, we have an article on Ashkenazi Jewish Intelligence which explores the possibility of a genetic component. I apologize if this belongs somewhere else, I am happy to move it, I don’t want to derail the discussion. Slyfamlystone (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a pretty clear statement on the scientific consensus from Bird et al "Confronting scientific racism in psychology: Lessons from evolutionary biology and genetics" American Psychologist (2024):

    Recent articles claim that the folk categories of race are genetically meaningful divisions, and that evolved genetic differences among races and nations are important for explaining immutable differences in cognitive ability, educational attainment, crime, sexual behavior, and wealth; all claims that are opposed by a strong scientific consensus to the contrary. ... Despite the veneer of modern science, RHR [racial hereditarian research] psychologists' recent efforts merely repeat discredited racist ideas of a century ago. The issue is truly one of scientific standards; if psychology embraced the scientific practices of evolutionary biology and genetics, current forms of RHR would not be publishable in reputable scholarly journals.

    So yes, to the extent that all differences which are not evolved, genetic differences are environmental, the scientific consensus is that population differences in average IQ test performance are effectively 100% environmental. There are a lot of other sources you might look to if you're genuinely curious about the matter, starting with e.g. Nisbett et al. "Group differences in IQ are best understood as environmental in origin" American Psychologist (2012). If there are aspects of the article Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence which support a WP:PROFRINGE POV, they need to be corrected. But the mere fact that that article exists only shows that it is a notable topic of discussion, just like e.g. Race and intelligence, or Flat earth for that matter. Generalrelative (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I appreciate the sources, and I apologize for derailing the discussion. I genuinely wasn’t aware of the current scientific consensus, which has obviously changed since I was in school (many years ago). Slyfamlystone (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries at all! I appreciate the thoughtful engagement. Generalrelative (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in a bit of a hurry at the moment, but it bothers me that much of what's going on above is fundamentally a misinterpretation of how we work. He doesn't have to be right, or honest, or non-fringe. He doesn't have to satisfy NPROF. We're allowed to have articles on people who peddle bad science, racism, or whatever, provided they do it in a notable way. I see this guy has been reviewed in New Scientist [12] and what looks like another okay source [13] so I'm not sure we can delete. I'm leaning keep though the article needs to present what he is, realistically. Elemimele (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:FRIND sources. I agree that the subject takes fringe positions, and we should therefore be looking for more coverage in mainstream secondary sources.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Seems to be lots of papers by this person in Gscholar, one in Gbooks, and that's about it. This [14] is clearly PROMO for the RIOT IQ test, as I suspect this article is. I'm not sure it passes academic notability, based on the discussion above, I'm not convinced. You can be whatever you want to be, so long as we have sourcing about it in RS, you can likely have a Wikipedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't want to say this but seems like some delete votes appear out of blue with no solid analysis of the situation just static reply and boom. Anyway, here is my Second analysis based on the policies of WP:PROF.

Agree to the point made by “Elemimele” above. He doesn't have to be right or non-fringe. I also don’t see how he fails to meet multiple criteria for encyclopedic notability under Wikipedia's guidelines for Academics and Researchers (WP:PROF) and the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG). His scholarly output and professional recognition seem to support his sustained impact on the fields of psychometrics and educational psychology. Some examples inlude:

  • WP:PROF C1 (Highly Cited): Citation profile demonstrates solid scholarly impact. He has an all-time H-index of 27, with an H-index of 20 accumulated since 2020 alone. His work has amassed over 3,144 total citations (2,040 accumulated since 2020), easily exceeding standard thresholds for significant scholarly influence.
  • WP:PROF C3 (Major Works): As people have stated numerous times above, he is the author of two major academic books. Publication by Cambridge University Press signifies recognized, definitive contributions suitable for broad academic usage.
  • WP:PROF C2/C4 (Leadership and Major Awards): He holds a current, high-level, peer-selected role as an Editorial Board Member for Intelligence, which is widely recognized as the preeminent specialized journal in human intelligence research. This journal includes the likes of Richard J. Haier, who is an esteemed colleague of Warne’s. Furthermore, he received the Award for Excellence in Research from the Mensa Education & Research Foundation in 2020, a major award from a highly relevant international association.
  • WP:GNG / WP:PROF C5 (Influence and Non-Trivial Coverage): His work has generated non-trivial independent coverage and substantial scholarly debate.
  • His research co-authored in Archives of Scientific Psychology, which analyzed best-selling psychology textbooks and found them to contain 43 inaccurate statements regarding intelligence, was reported on in detail by the British Psychological Society (BPS) [15].
  • Most decisively, his book In the Know has prompted extensive and deep academic controversy. While it received a positive review in the journal Intelligence ``, it also generated a lengthy, detailed, and highly technical academic rebuttal published in Psyche and Sense [16]. This sustained engagement—dissecting his statistical and conceptual foundations (e.g., hereditarian perspective, correlation/causation fallacies, and the ACE model) over several thousand words—confirms that Dr. Warne is recognized as an influential figure in contemporary psychometric discourse, satisfying WP:GNG through independent, in-depth secondary analysis.Bruce2023 (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We have been over this already. You are misapprehending the criteria.
    • C1 requires that significant impact in their scholarly discipline be demonstrated by independent reliable sources. No such sources have been provided that state Warne has made a significant impact. Counting citations does not establish this since these could be critical or simply routine. We would need an acceptable WP:SECONDARY source saying something like "Warne has made a big impact on field X."
    • C3 is about being elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. I think you mean C4, but in that case we would expect to see mainstream, independent academic reviews of his books, and as established above there really aren't any.
    • Richard Haier was canned from his position at Intelligence after an investigation of its poor editorial practices. According to the current Editorial Board page Warne is no longer on the board either. In any case, having been on the editorial board of a journal is routine, not notable, for an academic, and has nothing to do with either C2 or C4.
    • C5 is for scholars who have held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution. I'm baffled as to why you would list this. Warne's highest position appears to have been Associate Professor at Utah Valley University.
    • His work has not received enough non-trivial coverage to establish notability, as has been established already in this and the previous AfD. It's surprising to me that you would insist again that this self-published blog post establishes notability when I have already explained above (in my response to 4meter4) that including it in a BLP is explicitly disallowed by policy, specifically WP:SPSBLP: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themselves.
    I am sorry if this is a difficult process for you but the issue is a clear lack of notability as defined by our policies and guidelines. Generalrelative (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

--Setwardo (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[edit]

An automatically generated list of proposed deletions and other psychology-related article alerts can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Article alerts

No articles proposed for deletion at this time.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Psychology&oldid=1320390801"