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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JO Steenkamp[edit]

JO Steenkamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Google hits are all non-independent sources. I dream of horses (T) @ 23:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No decent independent WP:RS, 2 archival publications on his SHIP theory in WoS, neither of which has ever been cited, and no other credible claim to notability. This is an uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep there are independent secondary sources which support his notability (I've added them to the article). The article does need editing to address the WP:COI problem. Wayne Jayes (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. You've added a book that references Steenkamp/SHIP and, from what I can tell, 2 references from obscure journals and 1 unpublished master's thesis, that might do likewise. These are 4 (somewhat weak) citations to Steenkamp's work, not secondary sources that discuss Steenkamp (the person) at length. The fact remains that SHIP is an obscure modality that has not been accepted in mainstream practice, nor has Steenkamp's work in this area been widely noted or cited. Agricola44 (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• Agreed, but my preference generally is to err on the side of 'keep' rather thane delete; it's very easy to press the delete button, but creating something (like a reasonably good WP article) takes time and effort. I don't know Steenkamp, nor am I a psychologist, I have no vested interest in this article, but I feel it does warrant retention. Wayne Jayes (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're saying that your "keep" is based not on whether Steenkamp is notable (indeed that he seems not to be), but rather on the fact that someone put some work into creating this article. I think this is the first time I've ever seen "keep" blatantly argued from the standpoint of the labor theory of value in an AfD. And, for the record, I am a completely disinterested commentator on this article, as well. Agricola44 (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• delete per Agricola. Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• ;Delete Neither he nor his method are notable. The references added do not show notability--rather, that these are the only mentions they show lack of notability DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 23 July 2015 (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.