Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Tucker

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Tucker[edit]

[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)

The article subject does not appear notable under GNG, and if he is an academic, then it does not appear his research has had a significant impact, at least not on an individual level (as compared to the "National Center on Education and the Economy" organization he founded). The current article is sourced entirely to primary sources written by the article subject or his organizations, or sources that do not mention the article subject. The information I can find on him that are not published by him or related organizations (such as Education Week) is limited to occasional quotes by mainstream publications, and they usually do not provide any information beyond his affiliation with his organizations. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Many reliable sources indicate that he is notable. See this and this. Interstellarity (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Interstellarity, are there any reliable sources you can find that provide significant coverage of Marc Tucker? Those links you posted are an opinion article published by an unreliable source (see WP:RSP#The New American) and the author page for the three editorials by Marc Tucker published in The Atlantic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallyfromdilbert (talk • contribs) 18:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Enough reviews of his books for WP:AUTHOR, along with the pass of WP:PROF#C1 by heavily-cited publications already noted. Arguments based on WP:SIGCOV above by the nominator are flawed, as that's not the basis for WP:PROF notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- David Eppstein, I mentioned academic notability in my deletion nomination as well as GNG, although I did not look at the author notability guidelines. Would you be able to show me where to find some guidance as to what "heavily-cited" means for academic notability? Under Google Scholar, he has between 150-750 citations for four of his books or articles, and that seemed fairly low to me as that is about the same as some personal friends and family who I know are not notable. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It depends a lot by field, but educational standards seems to be moderately highly cited (not one of the low-citation fields like philosophy, pure mathematics, or taxonomy, but not one of the really high ones like image processing, theoretical physics, psychology, or medicine). So the fact that he has four publications listed in Google Scholar with over 100 citations each looks good enough to me. But other editors' opinions may differ. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion is the same. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    - Thanks. That seems like a low bar, but that is helpful information. I would not object if this AfD was closed early. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wallyfromdilbert it is a low bar, but if an author/artist has reviews in reputable venues it means that s/he is important and recognized by peers/critics/etc to some degree. The rule serves to exclude the promotional people that self publish stuff and never get any recognition neither academic nor in other venues. But I agree, for academics this may be almost too low a bar to pass, but it generally also doesnt seem to really hurt and still filters out a lot of chaff. --hroest 18:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Hannes Röst, thank you for that information. That is very helpful to know, and it may make me more confident in creating some author and academic biographies in the future! – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2021 (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.