Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reuven Bar-On

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 no consensus. Insufficient discussion to determine outcome. Sandstein 14:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reuven Bar-On

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

Concerns about notability, pseudoscience, and self-promotion reported at WP:BLPN. Bringing here for further assessment. Sagecandor (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The 2004 MIT Press book Emotional Intelligence: Science and Myth says: "While Goleman's name is rightfully associated with the popularization of EI, equally influential has been the work of Reuven Bar-On"[1], and it has an extensive discussion of his work, although not all of this is visible in GBooks. The rancorous talk page discussion includes assertions that he is not frequently cited, but I am puzzled by that given that GScholar turns up nearly 2,000 references. The talk page discussion, in which the subject himself appears to be a participant, also touches on whether the overall topic of emotional intelligence is fringe science, in the Wikipedia sense as discussed at WP:FRINGE. So I don't view this as presenting a serious question of notability. Given the extensive sources, it appears to me that this might be better handled, at least for now, by using Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard to seek wider participation in the talk page discussion, with the goal of improving this content through use of the appropriate independent reliable sources and ameliorating any concerns about conflict of interest, rather than trying to erase it using AfD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly passes notability criteria, his citation count might be the largest I've seen at an AfD discussion. Add to that his Fellowship in the British Royal Society of the Arts, and notability is more than adequately addressed. The issue is the current state of the article. Certain sentences suffer from WP:CITEKILL, will other swatches of the article are wholly unsourced. While there is a definite taint of promotionalism, I don't think it rises to the level where WP:TNT needs to be invoked. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 2 January 2017 (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.