Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Kashdan (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. ✗plicit 12:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Kashdan[edit]

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)

Nominating on behalf of an IP that I reasonably believe to be the subject, see article talk page. Note that the subject is blocked for sockpuppetry, see User:Jcourt656. Certainly notable per WP:NPROF and possibly WP:NAUTHOR (see previous AfD discussion), so the question is whether the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE trumps that. Note that part of the reason for the request is a Title IX disciplinary action against the subject, which he sued the university over; the lawsuit generated a fair bit of media coverage. I am neutral on the deletion question at this time. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychology, and Washington, D.C.. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really discussing deleting a scholar based on their behavior not scientific contribution??? Is this an encyclopedia or a who-is-who. 85.221.141.168 (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have an incident related to and with impact on the subject's career, with coverage in highly reliable sources. Past consensus at BLPN has been that incidents like this should be included (briefly and WP:DUEly) in an article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the result of the previous AfD. There's a good case for WP:PROF#C1 and a plausible case for WP:AUTHOR. (The latter case has only gotten better since the previous discussion, since a Kirkus review has appeared for The Art of Insubordination in the interim.) The IP editor who wishes the article deleted has made claims that the subject is notable, e.g., that a particular work is widely used in the field of psychology to measure and study psychological flexibility. They have also mentioned professional awards that could make a case for WP:PROF#C3 as well as national media coverage that (a) could count towards general biographical notability while also (b) undermining the claim that the subject is a low-profile individual in any meaningful sense. Honestly, this looks like an attempt to delete the article because they could not dictate its contents. XOR'easter (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, as publications clearly pass PROF-C1. This is not a borderline case. There is also high profile coverage, like this WaPo article, so GNG is also probably met. --Mvqr (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2023 (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.