Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Jussim

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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Jussim[edit]

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

Lee Jussim doesn't appear to meet any of the notability guidelines for academics - I'm not familiar with psychology but I don't think he's made an impact "clearly much more than the average researcher in the field," and if he has the article certainly doesn't assert it. Cited sources consist of his university website; his blog; Heterodox Academy, of which he's a member; and Quillette, which he writes for and I'm not sure passes the reliable source test. From a quick google search it doesn't look like he's covered at all in standard independent reliable sources.

After bringing it up to normal Wikipedia standards (cleaning up the overlong biography and filtering out unencyclopedic content) I don't see how this article could be more than a brief paragraph. 128.223.223.205 (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC) (copied: GermanJoe (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Note: Starting nomination on behalf of IP editor. Rationale copied from article's talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage exists in reliable sources: [1]. CJK09 (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page seems a bit overblown but the subject has attracted notice, e.g. Sydney Morning Herald. The social psychology field is rife with bad science, so causing the replication crisis. The subject seems to be making some impact in opposing this. Andrew D. (talk) 09:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as New Scientist and Sydney Morning Herald as identified in previous posts Atlantic306 (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this level of coverage (New Scientist article, and I guess the SMH editorial mentioning his existence) considered enough for a wikipedia article? In my area there are a whole hell of a lot of scientists with no wikipedia article and too little reliably sourced information to write much, but with an article in New Scientist or another popular-science magazine on the same level. 128.223.223.205 (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main considerations is the cite count of his works which [Google scholar] shows to have high cite counts. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with social psychology so I can't venture a guess as to what's an average number of citations for a social psychologist, but he's not the most highly cited social psychologist at Rutgers (there are more highly cited social psychologists at Rutgers without articles, and much more highly cited social psychologists elsewhere without articles).

Granted it doesn't make much sense to delete an article only because there are more notable subjects without articles, but even with the New Scientist article I don't think there's enough relevant and verifiable information for more than a paragraph worth of article. Is "google scholar reports a lot of citations and there's one article about his research in a popular science magazine" considered enough for notability? (I ask because again, my own field has a whole lot of scientists who aren't on wikipedia but are in a similar situation as Lee Jussim in that respect) 128.223.223.205 (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Yes as argued above an article should not come down based on what's not up. Second how can you make a serious argument for deletion with username which is an ip number? Who can tell what field you are in maybe you are an agent for an as yet to be invented nation but i see the number is attributed as to located at the University of Oregon.Masterknighted (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I used to actively edit wikipedia (username and all) but quit years ago. This post is actually a great summary of why. 128.223.223.205 (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Added a section on the original Nomination for Deletion page, to the effect of having Chaired Rutgers Psychology Department (2010 to 2013), and being a Full Professor, including a very long list of publications — all of this information is in the (externally) linked CV, published on Rutgers website (extensive academic history). In particular, Dr. Lee Jussim meets the 5th criteria for Notable academic. (Clean-up efforts a few days ago should have caught this obvious discrepancy, especially while citing Notable academics policy, and included an external link to the professor's Rutgers website.) 2601:204:0:F783:C981:7BA1:CBF:EF29 (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as lay-people including me will want to know who he is after reading his Psychology Today blog or his articles on Quillette or Heterodox Academy. Allowing people to learn more about him will help them assess his claims. Cleisthenes2 (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2017 (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.