Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert L. Campbell

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. Daniel (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Campbell[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)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACADEMIC. Being an editor at The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies does not make him notable, there are no reliable sources talking about him that I could find. Everything that needs to be said on this guy is already covered in the journal's page. SparklyNights 21:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychology, and United States of America. SparklyNights 21:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any substantial coverage of him personally, he doesn't appear to qualify for any of the options in WP:NACADEMIC, and I'm not finding enough coverage of his books to suggest notability as an author. (I note that the WP account User:RLCampbell is self-declared to be Robert L. Campbell. It has no edits related to this article, but I'm mentioning him here in case he wishes to comment. Since the account has no edits since 2014, I doubt whether he will.) --RL0919 (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Music, Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. His book Knowing Levels and Developmental Stages has 569 citations in GS, so will probably have reviews. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for actual reviews has not confirmed that assumption in my experience. If anyone has found reviews, please let us know. --RL0919 (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it (in 1986) falls into one of those holes that our library databases don't cover? I tried one of the hits in Ebsco, and got: "After I recommended Robert Campbell and Mark Bickhard’s monograph on the reflective construction of developmental stages (Campbell and Bickhard 1986), he said it had the most influence on his thinking of anything he ever read." which suggests it was influential. [1] Espresso Addict (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's also an example of a passing mention rather than substantial coverage, which is why GS hits alone can't establish notability. Regarding the possibility of a coverage hole, I just did WP:LIBRARY searches for some notable 1986 academic books: Weapons of the Weak, The Fragility of Goodness, The Dream of Reality, and most relevantly Social Foundations of Thought and Action (a psychology book). I immediately found multiple reviews for each. So, no, I don't believe the lack of reviews is a data artifact. The book just doesn't seem to have gotten a lot of reviews. And this is his major work in psychology – his other two books in the field are translations. Unless there's evidence he really moved the needle as a part-time jazz critic, I think the case for notability is getting worse, not better. --RL0919 (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editing a "major, well-established academic journal", more than 3700 citations on Google Scholar with an h-index of 25, and the library holdings all in all show notability according to WP:PROF. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sifting out the Google Scholar results for all the other R. L. Campbells, I don't think there's enough to justify a pass by WP:PROF#C1. And I don't think the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is weighty enough to qualify for WP:PROF#C8. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The journal editor seals the notability, seems to be a respected journal. Oaktree b (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ for the reasons given by XOR'easter. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is indeed not a hugely important journal. --Randykitty (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The citation record (3730) in a low citation field is also a pass of WP:NPROF C1. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes criterias 1 and 8 of WP:NACADEMIC. Saying otherwise just isn't accurate, and boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments that are ignoring facts in evidence.4meter4 (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now I see no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The combination of citations in a low citation field, acting as editor of both the aforementioned journal and as an editor[2] of New Ideas in Psychology seems to add up to PROF. —siro χ o 09:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have struck my earlier !vote. The editorship of New Ideas in Psychology makes this bio pass PROF. --Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes more than one criteria at WP:NACADEMIC. Also has more than 2,000 citations and 65 publications per Research Gate. Wozal (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2023 (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.