Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Teo

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 kept. bd2412 T 20:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Teo[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm putting this article up for a discussion, with my own position being weak delete because of potential lack of verifiable notability, with the only article sources apparently being published by the subject himself, and the whole article seemingly having been written as an aggrandizement by someone closely affiliated with the subject. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ATZNA 19:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not working in psychology myself, I'm not the best positioned to judge, but I suspect that Teo's corner of academia is a comparatively low-cited field, so his GS h-index of 18 might count substantially towards passing WP:PROF#C1. In addition, he edited the Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology (and remains a consulting editor). Scopus ranks this journal in the 86th percentile of philosophy journals, citation-wise, so his editorship might count towards passing WP:PROF#C8. If kept, the article would definitely need de-promotionalization, but that's routine for academic biographies, and sources affiliated with the subject are considered acceptable for uncontroversial claims (e.g., where they attended school). XOR'easter (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thomas Teo meets Wikipedia's Notable Scholar criteria WP:PROF#C1, WP:PROF#C4, WP:PROF#C6, and WP:PROF#C8 and I am recommending to keep the article. He is considered an influential researcher in the relatively small field of critical and theoretical psychology, evidenced in his authorship of numerous articles and books on the topic, including ones that cover a wide scope of the history and landscape of the field, such as his book Critique of Psychology: From Kant to postcolonial theory (cited 278 times according to google scholar), his 2015 article in the official peer-reviewed journal of the American Psychological Association American Psychologist called "Critical psychology: A geography of intellectual engagement and resistance", and in his role as the editor of the Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology, a 2100 page volume with 477 entries, which according to the publisher Springer's website has been downloaded over 85000 times and in 2016 was rated in the top 25% most downloaded eBooks the relevant SpringerLink eBook collection. In addition to the editorial positions mentioned in the comment above, he is also past-president of the American Psychological Association Division 24 Society for Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. Sus85 (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC) — Sus85 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, purely on reading the remarks from editors above. Szzuk (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2018 (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.