Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Marks (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Marks (psychologist)

David Marks (psychologist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Tagged as unreferenced since May 2007, cites a few sources but not independent ones. Sole biographical source is his own web page. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral I'm not so sure we should really be too concerned about personal details coming from his own website, since as far as is discernable, he didn't write the article. Perhaps some other editors could have a look at the references (they're all books), and decide if the refs section is up to scratch. I'm not sure which way to go on this one. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• An admittedly biased moderate keep. Lawdy. OK, I'll admit to bias here - I was taught by Marks way back during his time in NZ, and Richard Kammann as well (I was part of a follow-up study for their parapsychology work). As such, I can tell you that to the best of my knowledge the info here checks out, and the "Psychology of the psychic" book is a fairly important one in its field. Grutness...wha? 03:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Full professor at UK university, founder of journal of which he is Editor.[1] Published several mainstream texts eg see [2], as well as The Psychology of the Psychic for which Amazon.com claims 40 citations.[3] Medline finds around 27 papers for "DF Marks" that appear to relate to this author, including several in high-profile journals such as Nature and BMJ, and the majority in well-respected specialist journals. Google Scholar finds one paper with 193 citations, a further two publications with over 50 citations, and several others >20. Meets my understanding of WP:PROF, and might also score as a popular author. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Since this article was tagged as unreferenced back in May 2007, independent sources have been added to verify the biographical information concerning the subject (e.g. Who's Who, 2007). The textbook by Marks et al. (2005) on Health Psychology is listed by the publisher Sage as a "bestseller". The VVIQ, designed by Marks, has been cited in more than 300 publications, as listed by the ISI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freethought2008 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

fair to mention that Who's who is not accepted for notability, but is , like CVs a n acceptable source for noncontroversial bio details. Fact tags were added to this article for many totally routine items in the CV--is there some reason to think the material there wrong? Academic CVs are semi-official and almost always reliable as people can get fired for faking them. Yes, in principle they can be challenged here, but before going to the work of verifying them as if we were an investigatory body, there should be some reason for doubt. (Last spring there was one that did look inconsistent, and the pubs could not be found, so there was reason for doubt, & I did investigate the sources and could not find the PhD after multiple cross-checking & the article was deleted. took half a day. No reason to do this sort of thing routinely.) DGG (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral - Nothing describes anything original he has contributed to the field besides his Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ) of unknown usefulness (the pdf file used as supporting evidence for the questionaire does not say they used the VVIQ in the experimental design) and some books on very well known topics - one seems like somewhat of a reprint of a 1933 book. Someone has gone to the trouble to write wikipedia articles on these, e.g. The Psychology of the Psychic and on the New Zealand Skeptics which he co-founded (and its Bent Spoon Award which it gives out). A rather ordinary professional can achieve a high profile if someone takes the time to write up everything that person has done as an independent wikipedia article. Promoting cognitive behavioral therapy for smoking cessation (his The QUIT FOR LIFE Programme) is not exactly a novel idea. The Marks articles that exist seem overblown for what he has actually contributed. I predict soon there will be more articles on his individual books, programs, and co-foundings. Familiar scenario. Mattisse 23:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That seems more of a reason for getting rid of the less worthy of the other articles than the biography itself. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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.