Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald K. Hoeflin (2nd nomination)

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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald K. Hoeflin

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Non-notable pseudoscientist, does not meet WP:GNG. No WP:SUSTAINED WP:INDEPTH WP:DIVERSE coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject Polygnotus (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Philosophy, and Georgia (U.S. state). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Polygnotus (talk)
Source	Comments
Morris, Scot. "The one-in-a-million I.Q. test". Omni magazine, April 1985, pp 128-132.	Not about Hoeflin. Also clearly not WP:INDEPENDENT because it says This test is "the result of almost two years of collaboration between Hoeflin and Omni.
Republic Magazine, November 1985, "Beyond Mensa," by Catherine Seipp	An inflight magazine
Carlson, Roger D. (1991). "The Mega Test". In Keyser, Daniel; Sweetland, Richard (eds.). Test Critiques. Vol. VIII. Kansas City (MO): Test Corporation of America. pp. 431–435. ISBN 0-89079-254-2. ISSN 1553-9121. Although the approach that Hoeflin takes is interesting, inventive, intellectually stimulating, and internally consistent, it violates many good psychometric principles by overinterpreting the weak data of a self-selected sample.
"Mind Games: the hardest IQ test you'll ever love suffering through", Omni magazine, pp 90 ff, April 1990	Not about Hoeflin. Also clearly not WP:INDEPENDENT because it says This test is "the result of almost two years of collaboration between Hoeflin and Omni.
Prizes and Awards (American Philosophical Association	https://www.apaonline.org/page/jvi awarded for the best unpublished, article-length work in philosophy by a non-academically affiliated philosopher.
Proceedings, "News from the National Office". Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, Vol. 62, No. 4. (Mar., 1989), pp. 691.
"Ronald K. Hoeflin". geni_family_tree. 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2024-08-14.	WP:USERGENERATED
Hoeflin, Ronald. "About the Author." Noesis, Issue #176 February 2005.	This is a "magazine"/newsletter published by megasociety so not WP:INDEPENDENT
"Encyclopedia of Categories [Volume 1-13]". USIA: United Sigma Intelligence Association. 2020-11-17. Retrieved 2021-05-09.	Written and published by Hoeflin
Aviv, Rachel (2006-08-02). "The Intelligencer". Village Voice. Archived from the original on 2007-02-11. Retrieved 2006-08-02. This article is primarily a biography of and interview with Dr Hoeflin
Knight, Sam (2009-04-10). "Is a high IQ a burden as much as a blessing?". Financial Times (London). Retrieved 2006-04-20. This article has a section which contains a biography of and interview with Dr Hoeflin	Made me feel sorry for him. But it certainly does not make him notable.
Perleth, Christoph; Schatz, Tanja; Mönks, Franz J. (2000). "Early Identification of High Ability". In Heller, Kurt A.; Mönks, Franz J.; Sternberg, Robert J.; et al. (eds.). International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Pergamon. p. 301. ISBN 978-0-08-043796-5. norm tables that provide you with such extreme values are constructed on the basis of random extrapolation and smoothing but not on the basis of empirical data of representative samples.	Does not mention Hoeflin
Hoeflin, Ronald (July 1987). "About the Editor" (PDF). Noesis, the Journal of the Noetic Society. 16: 11. I have been a member of all six high-IQ societies listed in the Encyclopedia of Associations: Mensa, Intertel, the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry, the Triple Nine Society, the Prometheus Society, and the Mega Society — but I currently belong to only three of these: Mensa, Triple Nine, and Prometheus. I am the founder of Prometheus and of the Noetic Society (formerly called the Titan Society). I consider myself the founder of the Mega Society, although some argue that Chris Harding has at least equal claim to that status. I am also a co-founder of the Triple Nine Society. Thus, I have been at least partly responsible for the establishment of four of the seven currently active high-IQ societies.	This is a "magazine"/newsletter published by megasociety so not WP:INDEPENDENT
Sager, Mike (November 1999). "The Smartest Man in America". Esquire. Retrieved 2011-01-07.	[1] Human-interest story. I feel sorry for him after reading this. But it does not make him notable.
Membership Committee (1999). "1998/99 Membership Committee Report". Prometheus Society. Archived from the original on 2006-07-17. Retrieved 2006-07-26. `{{cite journal}}`: Cite journal requires `\|journal=` (help)	Founded by Hoeflin
A Short (and Bloody) History of the High I.Q. Societies Archived 2013-09-22 at the Wayback Machine	Not about Hoeflin specifically but about the Societies. Not an RS.

Keep. I was prepared to be convinced by the source analysis, but the profiles in the Financial Times, the Village Voice and Esquire go well beyond human-interest stories to constitute WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary, reliable sources, and thus a clear pass of WP:GNG. Cleanup is obviously needed to clear out user-generated and other unreliable sources, but WP:DINC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is very sad that neurodiverse people were and are often abused for human interest filler. Unfortunately he had no one to protect him. Luckily recently there is a bit of awareness growing that humans are not zoo animals. I am always confused that people think that GNG is as easy as 1-2-3. Who made that up? Polygnotus (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who exactly are you suggesting abused or is abusing Hoeflin? And how is this a helpful comment in the context of a discussion based on P&Gs? Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per Dclemens1971: bios in FT, VV, and Esquire are more than enough for GNG. (also coverage [even if critical] in Test Critiques suggesting that his work was read) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mscuthbert (talk • contribs)
Keep but parts of the article don't feel like NPOV to me. Epa101 (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2024 (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.