Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Warshak - Wikipedia

Article Images

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:PROF, best claim to fame is the unsourced assertion that his work had an impact on one volume of one journal; two books mentioned are popular, not scholarly, and the ideas promoted are not significantly noteworthy or accepted within the discipline (parental alienation is poorly accepted and nebulous, parental alienation syndrome more so and controversial, Warshak's own "parental alienation disorder" has even less history, controversy and acceptance. The intervention mentioned is a low-n study and it is far too early for it to have had any significant impact. The "Warshak Inventory for Child and Adolescent Assessment" referred to in the final paragraph turns up once on google scholar in a journal article that has nothing to do with it (actually an advertisement at the bottom of page 6/200). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gscholar gives an h-index of 18 or so, sufficient for notability under WP:PROF criterion 1. Gnews searching finds sufficient mention of him as an authority on the subject of child custody and divorces to have a shot at criterion 7 as well. Ray^Talk 23:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not convinced that he passes criterion 1 of WP:PROF, but there is a fair amount of newscoverage of him as GoogleNews shows[1], where he is frequently quoted as an academic expert in psychology, so there is a case for satisfying criterion 7 of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2010 (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.