Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Biswas-Diener


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Robert Biswas-Diener

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tagged for notability since 2009 and primary sourcing since 2013, neither of which appears to have been fixed. Lack of reliable independent sources suggests this may not meet WP:GNG Guy (Help!) 13:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  18:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  18:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per sufficient sourcing to pass GNG such as CNN. Valoem   talk   contrib  03:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not (yet) familiar with Wikipedia notability guidelines and I'm planning to read them soon. For the moment, I would like to assure everyone here that Robert Biswas-Diener is one of the most prominent researchers in the field of positive psychology, itself one of the main current of contemporary psychology. I will provide substantial evidence about this soon. Let me know if there are specific needs here.Viybel (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. An h-index of 32 would frequently be enough to establish notability by WP:PROF#1, but I suspect that this is a highly-cited field, and I note that his most-highly cited works seem to be coauthored with his very clearly notable father. Therefore, not taking a stance here. PWilkinson (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep based on WP:SECONDARY sources rather then scholarly notability. That said, it's marginal. Fiachra10003 (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Week keep I'm torn on this one. He has been cited nearly 6K times, but a lot of it is because of his father, and notability is not inherited. However, he has multiple works on which his father is not a coauthor, that have several hundred cites; so I'm going with keep here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2016 (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.