Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Kumhof

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 no consensus. So Why 10:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kumhof[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. LK (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note from the article author: "As I understand it this is about Mr Kumhof himself and not just one of his papers. And a quick googling of his name shows that he's mentioned by Bloomberg, Financial Times, The Telegraph and many other well known media outlets. So I'm sure he's notable. But what need to be done with the article to show this? ----Space4eva" - my recommendation would be to userfy until that notability is shown. Agathoclea (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for above post by Agathoclea. –Vami _IV✠ 10:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find the nomination rationale here rather too brief to be entirely convincing in this particular case. In most fields, we would usually find an h-index of 32, as given by GScholar, high enough to be regarded as sufficient evidence that the subject is notable under WP:ACADEMIC#1, even if (as in this case) they did not hold an academic post. Also, when the first page of GNews results shows his work being taken seriously by the Financial Times, Daily Telegraph and Neue Zürcher Zeitung, there seems to be a very strong case for WP:GNG. Having said that, I realise that economics might well be a field where an h-index of 32 is not significantly high, and that his employment as an in-house expert at the Bank of England and previously the International Monetary Fund could be used as an argument that some of his apparent notability (though, I would argue, by no means all) really attaches to his employers rather than him. But if these are regarded as sufficient reasons for denying him sufficient notability for a standalone Wikipedia article, I would prefer to see them stated - and open to argument - rather than left for the rest of us to infer. PWilkinson (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2018 (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.