Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Kashdan


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)  Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 05:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Todd Kashdan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E, with the 1E being the scandal reported by the Washington Post. That WaPo citation is the only WP:RS in the entire article. The rest of the sources are WP:PRIMARY (papers he wrote, contributor profiles, blogs, YouTube, etc). Does not meet any of the bullet points in WP:NACADEMIC. My own searching didn't find anything useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I seem to be clearly in the minority here, so I'll withdraw the nomination to save everybody time. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Google Scholar profile looks to me like a pass of WP:NPROF C1, even in a high citation field -- there are several articles with around 1000 citations, including first authored (in a field where that matters).  He's also published several books, and WP:NAUTHOR looks plausible: reviews include   on a short search.  His Psychology Today profile  also lists some fellowships in scholarly associations which might pass WP:NPROF C3, although I didn't verify them. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per PROF#1, he has a h-index of 96, including 3 works with over 1,000 citation in which he is the first author.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 14:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Along with the case for WP:PROF articulated above, he also has a weak case for WP:AUTHOR with multiple published reviews of his multiple books. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I think he passes WP:PROF, even in a high-citation field. I was able to verify his Fellow status in the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science and in the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies, but not in the Association for Psychological Science; their directory seems to only be searchable by members. I don't know if those would pass WP:PROF, but I wouldn't rule it out (to my recollection, they simply haven't come up before). WP:AUTHOR also looks plausible, per book reviews added by David Eppstein. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Clean up ✅ - I am going to try to address the tags on the article. It seems like profiles (likely written by the subject of the article) from magazines, etc. and his web page are used as sources. I am going to see what I can come up with after cleaning it up first and if it looks like saving.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - After swapping in better sources and adding some content, I vote to keep. It would be great if someone could check what I have written - I am a bit foggy today. But it seems like there could be much more added by checking out where his research is referenced in other studies. There's a lot more in newspaper articles, too.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per above. --hroest 00:22, 13 July 2021 (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.