Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Gray (psychologist)

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) ~ Amkgp 💬 15:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gray (psychologist)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

lack of reference. Notability issue? Factchecker170 (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:NAUTHOR. His Free to Learn book has been reasonably widely reviewed.[1][2][3] I did not find reviews of his Psychology textbook, but believe that to be due to its age. It's in its 8th edition, and appears to be reasonably widely adopted, being held in various editions by 310 libraries according to Worldcat. He appears to be well-cited, and WP:NPROF C1 is plausible, but his common name makes it difficult to search. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on WP:NPROF C1, the top two hits for a Google Scholar search for "Peter Gray play" are both from the subject, and have 400+ and 200+ GS citations respectively. The combination of this with the weak NAUTHOR looks to me like a reasonable case for keeping. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Russ Woodroofe Ed6767 talk! 16:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Russ Woodroofe & the textbook. Johnbod (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The arguments for notability as an author and as an academic both have merit and combined I think they show enough to make him WP notable. I found more citations at Google Scholar than I expected. Papaursa (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2020 (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.