Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jacobs (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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jacobs (economist)[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)

I set up this discussion without logging in and now I've created an account to ensure it gets full consideration. I have not edited before so I apologise if I have not got the form quite right. I use Wikipedia often and am often moved to edit but have never done so. In this case, I have (small) knowledge of the subject. I am not sure if it is correct to delete but am not sure what other action might be appropriate so I will be be bold (which I can see is a principle at Wikipedia) and let others judge. Essentially, I know that the subject was in charge of the staff at the Fabian Society (of which I am a member, society not staff) at the beginning of the century, but I am not aware that he is an economist. I do not wish to call anyone's judgement into question, but it is quite clear that the article has been set up by someone who may be known to, or may actually be, the subject (I understand that this allegation may be bad form at Wikipedia but it seems a reasonable inference). @Shardadean seems to not be a signed-in editor and seems to have created all the substantive content. Some of the supporting citations refer directly to the subject's own website. Some of the reference are peculiar and again unevidenced (e.g. Ref 13 claims that the subject in effect set up the highly notable Stern Report but provides no evidence other than a link to the Stern Report itself). The website, and therefore the article ('economist' 'professor'), does not reflect the subject's status as what appears to be an adjunct scholar at Sheffield University and formerly a visiting professor (i.e not a member of staff) elsewhere. There is no reference to a professorial chair or appointment anywhere. It provides no evidence that the subject is an economist (e.g. an economics degree?). It may be that as a former adviser to a prime minister the subject should be in Wikipedia, I am not sure, but the present content is both un-evidenced and misleading at respective points and so it would seem to me better to delete the article and let it start anew organically. As my final contribution here (I have made a number of edits already!) I see that WP:COI may be the case here. For example, many of the key paragraphs (including the first few) seem to be an unreferenced description of a book (in effect a self-review). I leave it to other editors to decide what should happen with this page, but the article does look hopelessly compromised. My apologies if I am wrong. Richard3444 (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment on other pages as appropriate now that I have started here! Richard3444 (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, United Kingdom, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Economics. TJMSmith (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment @Richard3444 thank you for your contribution and question here. This is a clear case where a discussion should be held on how the subject should be represented on Wikipedia and whether material should be removed from the article that is biased and does not follow WP:NPOV. However, the subject at hand is whether the article should be deleted and not whether it should be rewritten and re-organized (which it probably should). To decide upon deletion, we have to identify whether the subject has made significant contributions / impact as an academic or author to be of general interest and warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. To decide this we rely on guidelines such as WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:PROF. Note that even if the article is biased and written by a person with WP:COI, it would indicate a rewrite or even WP:TNT but not necessarily a deletion of the article which needs to be decided separately. Currently, it seems the best argument for notability is the subjects work as an author, I find at least two book reviews which are generally sufficient for WP:NAUTHOR: [1] [2]. --hroest 15:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve: even if created by someone connected to the subject, the subject seems to be often cited in British publications and appears to be notable. --Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This academic is a published full professor[3] not an adjunct. At least two of his books have received reviews. He meets WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR and may also meet WP:NACADEMIC as his work is widely cited by others[4]. An online WP:BEFORE search indicates that he is often called upon as a subject expert and government advisor in economics. The article can be improved, but should not be deleted. Note to Richard3444: I understand that you made this nomination in good faith, however it is unusual for a new editor's first edit to be an AfD nomination. It takes a while (in my case a few years) to fully understand the criteria for notability per Wikipedia's guidelines and all of its complexities and subtleties. Netherzone (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: Thanks very much indeed for all of these comments @netherzone and @Milowent. I think it's clear I've started by biting off more than I can chew here. I've read your comments and I'll learn from them, do be sure of that. I've carried out simple edits for a while without signing in, but now I've done the latter I've clearly got a lot to learn re: the WP policies. I don't think I can withdraw the proposal but it's obvious to me now that it would be best if I used this article to practice edit and improve it a bit. As I understand it, an uninvolved editor will close and keep. Now I see your points, it's obvious the subject is WP:GNG (learning...). Re: full professor. Tbh, that was what caught my eye in the first place. I do not work in academia but I do have a (slightly ageing) doctorate and my recollection is that professorial fellows are senior adjuncts usually funded through project grant funding (e.g ESRC). Often, the project is well enough established to bring in senior professionals from outside academia who do not have the academic background to qualify for a tenured post. It's not a slight on the individual, and some departments use the facility more than others. The tenured professors I know today often draw attention to the lack of academic publications; i.e. a practical book or two on an applied subject would not normally make someone competitive for a chair or personal chair unless they had a strong record of high value academic papers. Regardless, I completely take your points about WP and I'm really very grateful for you taking the time. I'll keep it simple for a while..... best wishes, and thanks again Richard3444 (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Richard3444, and thanks for your note. I'm in the U.S. where Professorial Fellow may have a different meaning here than in the UK. I did a quick search for Professorial Fellow in UK, and found this on the Oxford University website: "Professorial Fellows are the holders of Statutory Chairs, the most senior professorships in the University. They are all members of the College’s Governing Body."[5] Sheffield may have a different definition than Oxford, our article, Academic ranks in the United Kingdom lists Professorial Fellows as those on a research rather than teaching career path. Netherzone (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should be careful about definitions of job titles, which may be different at different universities in the same country, or even between different departments at the same university. Also Oxford and Cambridge are often different from other British universities. In this case I don't think it really matters whether the subject is a full-time professor with a standard career path or not. He seems to have enough reviewed books and highly-cited papers to be notable. And, Richard3444, please continue to be bold. As long as you are prepared to show your working nobody should admonish you for it. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2022 (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.