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. It has been sufficiently demonstrated that the sources provided are not specifically about Jensen, and are thus do not provide the in-depth coverage necessary for notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was userfied on request, rewritten, and now exists at Peter Jensen (Canadian Olympic trainer). G4 does not apply, though a user may nominate the page for deletion again if they wish. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Jensen (psychologist) (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)

Contested PROD with rationale: "Does not seem to pass GNG, seems clearly promotional, no sources for most of the claims (except a team roster)" ukexpat (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as prodder.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not appear to pass GNG and makes unsourced claims about the subject which have been challenged and without which the article could not be coherent. Formerip (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as aboveHillabear10 (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. I have trimmed and page-moved the article pending the outcome of this discussion. Formerip (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Found a Toronto Star source in 2 minutes -- and it appears that the Toronto Star is a Canadian reliable source. The person appears notable, and the weird renaming of the BLP should be undone. [1] Edmonton Journal is also a Canadian reliable source. [2] CBC is a Canadian reliable source. Mentioned in Washington Post [3], [4] Boston Globe, [5] Chicago Sun-Times and a host of other US reliable sources. Clearly notable with any looking at all, and clearly labeled by reliable sources including Canadian ones as a psychologist. Close this non-utile AfD, please. Collect (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of those sources independent of the subject, in the sense of not having taken their information from him? Do any of them contain information as to why he might pass GNG? Formerip (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- did you look at the list? I added more below in case they were hard to read. The Maple Leafs material likely came direct from the team. Once I reach at least fifty mentions, I figure that is quite enough. As for your quite cryptic note on my UT page that something "reely sekret" (my words) is involved - all I use is Wikipedia policies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we didn't look at the list - those Highbeam links only give most people a paragraph or two of the original article. (To be clear, it's good you found them, and I'm not finding better alternative versions online by searching Google with phrases) Wnt (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Jensen is not the subject of a single one of those links provided (though the CBC link appears broken), but rather, all of the mentions are trivial. Not seeing a WP:GNG pass here. Resolute 22:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? When the major person mentioned and quoted in an article is ignorable, then something is amiss. Rocky Mountain News February 29, 1996 Toronto Maple Leafs have enlisted the aid of sports pyschologist Peter Jensen to help snap them out of their doldrums. Boston Globe Orser has visited his psychologist, Peter Jensen, twice a week in the last four months, Rowing News special presenters included Mike Teti, coach of the U.S. men, and Peter Jensen, a noted sports psychologist, Catherine Garceau in her new book says We had adopted this recap technique on the advice of Peter Jensen, our team sport psychologist, Journal of Sports Medicine lists him. Is all the niggling over the word "psychologist" which in the US is not a medical discipline, while psychiatry is a medical discipline? If so - the US usage is fine for Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the debate over his profession. Call him whatever fits best. But the fact is, for all of your sources, this is the sum total of what we can say: "Peter Jensen is a sports psychologist who has worked with hockey teams and figure skaters." That's it. Full stop. That... is not an encyclopedic article. I could find a hundred articles that mention Calgary's recently retired head of bylaw services, most including quotes. That doesn't make him notable. Resolute 19:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there's any difference between the use of the terms "psychiatry" and "psychology" between the US and Canada. According to this article, psychology is a licensed profession in both countries under a single umbrella body. But the matter for discussion here is GNG, not the definition of words. Formerip (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the sheer number of reliable sources mentioning this person is the essence of "notability" -- book review in ABA Journal [6], writer for HuffPo Canada [7], etc. His article may have been puffy - and I am known as an enemy of puff, but deletion is rarely logical when the dang person has this many reliable source mentions. Collect (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I broke my arm my doctor provided care. Infact, my doctor is also the doctor for Brett Hull, John Kelly, and Brian Williams. While these three people are notable, myself and the doctor are not.Hillabear10 (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not appear to pass WP:GNG, and in its previous iteration, was purely promotional. Without the promo material, there's no worthwhile content here. CityOfSilver 23:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may have missed my RS addition to the BLP -- it is troubling when during an AfD, reliably sourced and non-contentious material is removed. And I would note that "LinkedIn profiles" (mentioned in the Ice Hockey project page) are not reliable sources for anything on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My impression was that, when more substance was on the page, the article read like a pamphlet. CityOfSilver 23:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a content concern - not a notability concern. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're half-right, from where I stand. That there is no worthwhile content indicates a lack of notability. A cursory glance at the sources listed above does little to change my impression that Jensen isn't very notable. CityOfSilver 23:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Obviously any Canadian Olympics icehockey coach will be mentioned in various sources. But if nothing is written about him specifically then he lacks notablity. I notice also that Collect is claiming in the article that he is a psychologist, although there is no source that he ever made that claim and it is illegal to do so if one is not registered as a psychologist. TFD (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made no such claim - I stated that reliable sources used the word. And it is not i;;ega; for reliable sources to use that word. Nor does Canadian law affect what we write in Wikipedia using reliable sources like the Toronto Star etc. Cheers - but next time please do not attack me personally for what the reliable sources uses as a term. And also note WP:NLT if you were implying in any way whatever that I was doing anything "illegal." Collect (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Ontario Psychology Act, 1991, 8. (1), "No person other than a member shall use the title “psychologist”...." See 10. "Every person who contravenes subsection 8 (1) or (2) is guilty of an offence...."[8] While it is legal to call someone else a psychologist, it makes no sense to do so if that person does not or cannot make that claim about themselves. TFD (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to remember that, although we may have legitimate reasons to wonder about Jensen's professional status, we do not have hard evidence that he has done anything illegal. Formerip (talk)

Inndeed, TFD's post might be viewed as an explicit "legal threat" which he would apply to the subject of the article, and not to any editor as we clearly do not fall under that act. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FormerIP, no one has made that claim. The point is that if someone is not recognized as a psychologist, and does not claim to be one, then we should not call that person one. As for "legal threats", Collect, no one has broken any laws, no one has accused anyone of breaking any laws, which is quite clear from the discussion. TFD (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A serious matter of public saftey and needs to be corrected. There is no justification to why the title should apply to a person who is not legally entitled to use it. Hillabear10 (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The so-called "essence of notability" Collect postulates is found in no notability criteria. The GNG is clear: the subject must be discussed in "significant detail" and the references must be about the subject, not merely quoting him. Casual mentions do not count. So he's casually mentioned in a number of sources? 0+0+0+0 = 0. Ravenswing 07:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the sources mention him or quote him, but are not about him. Unless we have some sources actually about Jensen, he fails the tests. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Added even more sources - including NYT and CBC mentions quoting him specifically as an expert, noting media interest at Olympics (160 media interviews at one Olympics != non-notable person), use by other reliable sources - usually folks are way past GNG at this point. I can add about a dozen more if this needs to be userfied and replaced in mainspace after they get added, of course. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And which of these sources "address the subject directly in detail", such as to actually meet GNG? Resolute 14:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The CBC article says "Peter Jensen has spent more than two decades working with Olympians. This will be his seventh Olympic games and right now, he's working with the Canadian women's hockey team..." That's not just a one-off quote; it's actually about Jensen. Yes, he tends to share the limelight, and yes, those paywalled sources are annoying, and yes, the article seems weirdly written in reaction to the AfD, but the point is, he should be covered. Wnt (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject has verifiably been training Olympic-level athletes pretty much continuously since at least 1986 [9], and the athletes concerned seem to have been attributing their success to his training for just as long. And even if the man is legally speaking not a psychologist (something that, as far as I can see, we have not established one way or the other), it looks as if newspapers are quoting him not just as the Canadian women's ice hockey team mental trainer but as the foremost Canadian Olympic-level expert on something suspiciously like sports psychology (and the number of different sports in which he has trained Canadian Olympics and international teams seems to suggest that the various sports have a similar opinion. The fact that, over the past twenty years, he has been building a business career on this reputation should be seen as largely irrelevant - the reputation fairly clearly preceded the business, even if many of the most likely references for that are behind paywalls. PWilkinson (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the significant coverage in http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/1458388561.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Apr+08%2C+2008&author=Donna+Spencer&pub=The+Spectator&desc=Hey+doc%2C+I%27ve+got+a+problem%3B+Sports+psychology+breeds+success%2C+just+ask+members+of+Team+Canada&pqatl=google. Although that source is under a paywall, I was able to locate a non-paywall link from NewsBank; see http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/AWNB/11FEC8EE59854B70/0D7C12F5A8A2A86A (archiveurl). The article begins with:

  At the 1988 Olympics in Calgary, Dr. Peter Jensen was inundated with more than 160 requests for media interviews.

  Sports psychology was so new and novel that everyone wanted to know about how an athlete's brain worked. But Jensen wanted to work behind the scenes and said he didn't respond to even one of those requests.

  The third sentence explains why Jensen, as Wnt (talk · contribs) notes, tends not to "share the limelight" because he is disinclined to interact with the media.

  There are several more paragraphs about Jensen, so this The Hamilton Spectator article provides nontrivial coverage about the subject.

  Combined with the other sources found by Collect (talk · contribs), it is clear that Jensen passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I had been pretty ambivalent about whether it should be kept or deleted. Just didn't believe it should go the prod route. That being said the work done by Cunard, Wnt and PWilkinson has pushed me over the edge to believe it is a keep. -DJSasso (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2012 (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.