Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Talwar

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 delete. Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Sandstein 21:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Talwar

[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)

This nomination is a courtesy request on behalf of Dr Talwar who has contacted the WMF via VRTS ticket # 2020012110008396. Dr Talwar contends that her notability is at best borderline. I would add that the stub article only contains one secondary source, the others are all primary, and none of the criteria of WP:NPROF appear to be met. Nthep (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nthep (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Her Canada Research Chair is tier-2, meaning that it probably isn't enough for WP:PROF#C5. But her citation record looks like a pass of WP:PROF#C1 to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As far as WP:NPROF C3 goes, she is also a fellow of the Association for Psychological Science and of the Royal Society of Canada. The citation record looks like an easy pass of WP:NPROF C1. The only thing that stops me from an immediate keep !vote is that it looks like her most highly-cited papers are coauthored with her former PhD advisor. Otherwise, she looks notable, nothing borderline about it. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as page creator) — I concur with David Eppstein's evaluation per the WP:PROF criteria; in some circumstances, I would argue for a keep. The question now is whether her wiki-notability is so incontrovertible, and her omission from the encyclopedia would be so hurtful to the project, that her deletion request should be overridden. To that end, I note that I had forgotten I'd created this stub, and it seems the only substantial work done on it since then was to add a few categories. XOR'easter (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her work has been covered in major international publications. Sources include:

Significant coverage

The following sources discuss her research about lying children:

"Strict parenting turns children into liars, experts claim" from The Independent
"YES, MOM AND DAD, I LIED SOMETIMES—BUT THAT’S ALL YOUR FAULT" from Pacific Standard
"Is Your Child Lying to You? That’s Good" from The New York Times
"New Year’s Resolution: Be More Honest" from The New York Times
"Big Little Liars" from The New York Times
"How to Handle Little Liars" from The Wall Street Journal
"Why Is My Child Lying?" from Psychology Today
"Imagine: Children will lie. It’s not a flaw but a necessary milestone" from Indian Express
"What Makes Children Lie?" from Big Think
"What Makes Children Lie?" from Healthline

...and on and on and on. Just look her up on Google News. I had the WP article about me deleted, but I do not think it was a loss to the encyclopedia and my personal life was being deeply impacted by its existence. If that was the case – the harassment and personal impact of the article - I can consider otherwise , but, frankly, she is notable and I think her and her work is encyclopedic. (Now I know why I was a lying little kid...)Missvain (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Delete I think Ms. Talwar is probably sufficiently notable that all else being equal I'd support keeping an article about her -- but, you know, there's a reasonable enough argument for deletion and thus I think we should err on that side here. The citations provided above are helpful and really good, but arguably cover topics on which she has commented rather than providing coverage of Ms. Talwar herself. That, paired with the request, would suggest permitting deletion. That being said, I don't want to suggest that we should institute any sort of guaranteed right not to be covered in Wikipedia -- but when, as here, deleting an article would do no significant harm to the project, and when there is a colorable argument for deletion, I'm in favor of honoring the request. TheOther Bob 17:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to Delete per nomination and Bob. --hroest 20:51, 29 January 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.