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; large majority consensus. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tasha Eurich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Minor academic who has published a book, and is clearly quite good at orchestrating her own PR. This article appears to be promotional spam added by a SPA. Fails WP:AUTHOR, fails WP:ACADEMIC. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Promotional content —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete essentially per nominator. I cannot find evidence that she is notable as an author, as an academic, or that she meets WP:GNG. Vanamonde (talk) 08:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Promotional work by single-purpose account. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Little impact on GS. WP:Too soon BLP is bloated with promotionalism. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• SNOW Delete as nothing for WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 01:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The "Martin P. Seligman Award for Outstanding Achievement in Applied Research in Psychology" is from a respectable society, but it is only a dissertation award. The rest is promotional fluff. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete CNN's "iReport" is user submitted "citizen journalism" which does not go through any fact checking or professional editorial control. Not a reliable source. The other sources have a variety of similar weaknesses. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Entirely promotional page. -- Dane2007 ^talk 07:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: Sock editor notwithstanding, we have a combination of writer, speaker and academic. The TED credit jumped out at me, and I also see mainstream press credits. WP:ACADEMIC is only part of the picture here, though each of these SNGs alone might not get her to GNG, I think that in combo they do. Article would benefit from a rewrite, big time, to remove the fluffy tone. Montanabw^(talk) 08:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• may have marginal notability NOT an academic, she is a PhD psychologist, consultant, pop-psychology author, and leadership guru. Article is misleadingly (dishonestly) worded PROMO, asserts that She "has been featured in... The New York Times" So I ran a search. 2 hits. 1.) she answered a question posed by the Times: "Try to find common ground, says Tasha Eurich, a workplace psychologist and principal of the Eurich Group, a leadership and organizational development consulting firm in Denver: “Say something like, ‘I bet we can agree that both candidates are smart people who care about their country a great deal, right? Let’s leave it at that.’ And then change the subject.” If your co-worker is unrelenting, she says, tell him or her that you fear you’re both going to become upset if you keep the discussion going, so you’re going to walk away."[1] 2.nd NYTimes mention) came Oct. 20, 2013 when her book placed #8 on the Advice, How-To & Miscellaneous bestseller list; but only for that single week. Still, that is something. Just, it's not being "featured" in the NY Times. Searched Forbes, found somewhat less [2], quoted by reporters twice, not "featured." Nor is a TED talk the highly selective accolade it was in the early years. TED-flation, has set in; with the inevitable cheapening of the currency. gNews can be a good indication of current notability [3]. Some of those hits - and there aren't all that many - are things she wrote, this one [4] may be persuasive; her books seem to sell. If kept, this deeply misleading and overhyped bio needs to be rigorously deflated. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2016 (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.