Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathy Malchiodi

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Malchiodi[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)

I don't believe the subject of this article meets WP:NPROF. She has not held a senior faculty position in any university. She has published many books, but references to her in other books are sparse - as far as I could find, largely in the acknowledgements section. The sources in the article are a mix of a self-created profile, interviews, a podcast, a book she authored, and a passing mention. The strongest case I could make out for her is her regular column in Psychology Today and her book authorship, but neither seems enough to me to demonstrate her notability, especially as this is a BLP and the article seems somewhat promotional. Mccapra (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Leaning keep. Her books are highly cited, making WP:NPROF C1 plausible. WP:NAUTHOR also looks likely. I added one review to the article, here are two more [1] [2]. Her edited volume has also been reviews [3]. I agree that the article needs cleanup. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, agree with Mccapra. It's overly promotional, which is fine as it can be edited, but it seems that it is another page that exists mostly to serve as support for subject's own site ("sign up for my trainings"). Not much of a case for PROF, so mostly AUTHOR? Caro7200 (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for either writers or academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has over 6109 citations on google scholar which usually meets WP:NPROF Lainx (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She passes WP:PROF#C1 and it's not so promotional that it can't be cleaned up. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has a large number of GS citations for WP:NPROF C1, but looking through them, an unusually large number appear to be erroneous or repeated. I searched in Scopus, and still believe in the NPROF case, but it's weaker than first appears. However, the NPROF case is supported by WP:NAUTHOR. She has a large number of books, and while the number of reviews is relatively small, I think it's a weak pass. Worldcat helps support, showing many books held by hundreds or thousands of libraries. Combining the two, I think it's a solid keep case. The article is not in great shape, with puffery, a completely unsourced "Research and achievements" section, etc etc. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The arguments presented by David Eppstein and Russ Woodroofe are particularly convincing. ——Serial^# 12:53, 26 May 2020 (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.