Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gene Callahan (economist)

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. Consensus here is that, regardless of his publication history, third-party coverage is lacking. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Callahan (economist)

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

American academic without significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) As for the scholar notability guideline, he is not a full faculty member, and has fairly low Google Scholar citations and trivial library holdings for his field. Considered redirecting to an article on Economics For Real People, as its reviews occupy most of the author's article, but again, low library holdings for the title, and the book was not even listed in Book Review Index or Digest, so the other reviews are niche, minor, or unreliable. Alas. czar 05:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar 05:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar 05:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. czar 05:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – REPEC provides a listing of scholarly articles, all reliable and independent. Also, given the state of "liberal biases" within academia these days, it is not surprising that he's not mainstream. (Just like Helicobacter pylori was not the mainstream cause of stomach ulcers until 1982.) Alas (indeed) upcoming travel prevents me from working on the article. (ARROO!) – S. Rich (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that he wrote are not independent of the subject (himself). The question is what significant coverage in secondary sources or collections show the impact of his work. czar 16:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Entries under section headers "Notes" and "External links" are more than sufficient to ensure subject's notability. If the bar were to be placed so high that even such a lengthy career in economics and academia is insufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia, then our enumeration of 1551 entries [as of this writing] at Category:American economists would be very slim indeed. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

??? I count his two books, his staff listing (none independent), and two book reviews mentioned in the nom, published from the same institute that published his books. External links are all listings of his own blog posts. More than sufficient?—not even close... czar 18:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both his single-digit h-index on Google scholar [1] and his failure to appear on REPEC's list of the top 25% of economists in his home state [2] argue that he does not pass WP:PROF#C1, and no other argument for notability has been adduced. We need academic impact, not just the existence of publications, for notability, and I don't see it here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at H-index#Results_across_disciplines_and_career_levels, I see that "7.6" is an acceptable h-index number for full professors in economics. Callahan (if I read this right) has a "9". – S. Rich (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics about the issues with using h-index without added context. @DGG also considered them low. czar 05:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "citation metrics" guidance does not support David Eppstein's comment. Also, not being in the top 10% (or 25%) REPEC listing is a poor argument. By that logic WP would only have 1,010 US economist articles. But Category:American_economists gives us about 2,000. – S. Rich (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metrics weren't his sole rationale, though. czar 05:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without more his argument (like Xxanthippe's below) is WP:ATA. – S. Rich (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the above arguments were not convincing and that no other sources are forthcoming is not "ATA" czar 06:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:Prof not passed. Can't find much else. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, prolific in terms of publication output, but the guidelines look for third-party attention, not just a high publication count. Comments above implying that Callahan should get a free pass because of 'the state of "liberal biases" within academia these days' are not grounded in policy and should be ignored by the closing administrator. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:12, 19 March 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.