Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney James Van Pelt

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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney James Van Pelt[edit]

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

Not notable.
SPA editor doesn't exactly instill confidence either.
This same page created across other wikis (e.g., es.wiki) isn't a good sign either.
Cheers. Qwerty Binary (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Merge British Journal of Medical Hypnotism and British Society of Medical Hypnotists into Sydney James Van Pelt. I know, hypnotism, but this was taken seriously for a time as a medical treatment and he helped pioneer it, according to this source.[1] One of his books was reviewed in The American Journal of Psychology[2]. He was called a "leading medical hypnotist" in the New York Times (07 Aug 1954, "Asthma Laid to Tensions"). For anyone searching most results found as "S. J. van Pelt". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:ACADEMIC as the editor-in-chief of a notable journal. Oppose merging of the articles on the society and the journal into this bio, although I don't have a problem with merging the society article into the journal article (but not the other way around). --Randykitty (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How determine the journal is notable? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The journal was indexed in MEDLINE, a rather selective database and therefore meets WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was in Medline but no longer. Some caveats about Medline in WP:NJournals, not an automatic notability. And only 1 year's (volume) of the journal were indexed (out of 17).[3] Looks like one good source (Gravitz, Melvin (1987)). Still believe Van Pelt, his Society and his Journal would be notable as a single article, harder to justify three articles. No information would be lost combining and maintain redirects. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That remark in NJournals is because many people equate PuBMed and MEDLINE. The latter is selective, but the former contains not only MEDLINE-indexed journals, but also journals that are in PubMed Central, which are not necessarily notable. That this journal was indexed for only 1 year is not much of a problem, I think. It's not like it was delisted by MEDLINE or something like that, indexing stopped simply because the journal folded. Both the journal and the society have histories independent of van Pelt, so I don't think that merging them there is appropriate. The histories of the journal and society, however, do overlap, so merging the society into the journal article makes most sense to me. --Randykitty (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK good enough. I've change my vote to Keep and worry about merge elsewhere. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, with a question: So is the idea to keep the article and improve it, then? Whether or not the answer to that is a yes, I have sincere and serious questions about having three, let alone this one article or an article composed of the three articles. For what it's worth, hypnotism as a page is very poorly done, especially with its treatment of its medical uses, legitimacy, or efficacy.

Whether or not a journal is indexed by MEDLINE/PubMed/Ovid/WoK/WoS/G Scholar/whatever shouldn't in and of itself be a sign of a journal's notability or lack thereof, in the case of those that aren't indexed. However, these do roughly indicate whether a journal may be notable enough.

My main complaint with the British Journal of Medical Hypnotism is that medical libraries and other academic libraries do not carry this journal, either as hard-copy versions or e-journals. In fact, in order to determine whether this was notable, I had to go out of my way to hunt down issues of this journal. Further, this isn't a journal with any significant readership and isn't particularly well cited, even in its area of academic rigour. Its contributors do not, in fact, number that many.

As for Dr. van Pelt himself, his work does not seem to have lasted the test of time and he has not left enough of a legacy. van Pelt appears not have be adequately notable per the appropriate notability criteria. As an alumnus of the Sydney Medical School, he does not appear to be recorded in the School's annals, which is further suggestive of his lack of having made enough of a mark to be included on Wikipedia. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because virtually nothing in the article is verified. Of the three references listed, the first is impossible to evaluate, being both offline and in a foreign language; the second is a dead link; and the third does not appear to mention the subject at all that I could find. I don't doubt that he existed and so on, and I recognize the difficulty of finding sources for someone of his generation - but I need to see some supporting evidence for the notability claims like "pioneer of modern medical hypnosis and hypnotherapy". I am open to changing my opinion if verification can be found. --MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Search of Google Books and Google Scholar confirms that he wrote books; nothing else. If he was such a pioneer, wouldn't you think somebody would have written ABOUT him somewhere? --MelanieN (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to British Society of Medical Hypnotists, as notability for the subject seems difficult to establish. The content can always be split out as and when appropriate sources are found. Deletion wouldn't be helpful, as it's a plausible search term. -- Trevj (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are enough reliable sources here... Not having sources on-line in English is not a valid deletion criterion. Technical 13 (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep article appears to meet WP:ACADEMIC. Nothing too puffy in the article either, unlike many of these borderline academic cases. -Drdisque (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2013 (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.