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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Zagar[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:PROF *Delete (from nominator). Self-aggrandizing article written by the BLP himself. Non-notable, no significant coverage in secondary sources, no evidence of WP:PROF level recognition or general notability, sources are all WP:SPS. Wunderkidding (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Wunderkidding (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article contains bold unsubstantiated claims such as "Zagar's work impacted on the U.S. Supreme Court in..."((cn)) Almost the entire list of "references" reads like a bibliography of the subject. I would think that someone whose work was praised by President Clinton would have received some mention in RS news. --mikeu ^talk 22:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not WP:ANYBIO not WP:GNG. Lubbad85 (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The subject needs to be evaluated by the standards of WP:PROF rather than news reports, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. I note that his Google Scholar profile shows 1060 citations with an h-index of 18. This would be high in some fields but not in others. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment FWIW, although published, a very proportion of that list came from "Psychological Reports" which is not quite reputable. Also, having an h-index (of whatever level) is not one of the criteria from WP:PROF, and he doesn't fulfill any other others. Wunderkidding (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF#C1 is normally based on citations to a subject's work. Do you have any evidence that Psychological Reports is not a reputable publication? And, anyway, if we are to go by what publications satisfy your definition of reputability we should look at where papers citing Zagar's work are published. It's the citations that determine notability, not the publications themselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails all relevant forms of notability.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Self reference.^[1] Unoc (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: academic articles often use self references but usually for an assertion of notability instead of just to dump original research on Wikipedia under the guise of a biography. SITH (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2019 (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.