Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Chriss

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Chriss

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

Nominating on behalf of unregistered User:207.38.212.61, whose rationale I will paste below. I contested WP:PROD deletion on the basis that this wasn't clear-cut enough to delete without discussion, and am neutral until I have looked into this further. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page exists for the purpose of self-promotion and was most likely written by Neil.

The first two sections, "Early Career" and "Academia", are simply pulled from "How I Became A Quant." Conveniently, Neil wrote his chapter in How I Became A Quant. Every chapter in that book is a first person narrative, written by the subject. The statements could be true, but they are directly from the mouth of the author, and therefore biased and unsubstantiated.

The section on Wall Street is primarily a sequence of name dropping. Unsubstantiated statements include

The Risk Magazine named Chriss one of the "Top Ten to Watch in the next Ten Years" in 1997.
One person in particular was Peter Muller who inspired Chriss to pursue quantitative trading.
He joined the group after Cliff Asness, John Liew and Bob Krail left to form AQR Capital Management.
Ray Iwanowski and Mark Carhart became heads of the group and recruited Neil Chriss.
Chriss departed Goldman and the trader game in 2000 to start a brokerage business.

The section on Mathematical Finance education lacks any citations.

The section on "Hedge funds" lacks citation. Most glaringly:

The details of his time at SAC are not well known. Chriss resigned from the firm in early 2007.

Neil is no more notable than any other person with a PhD who has gone on to work in finance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.212.61 (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could use improvement, as mentioned above, including verification of the biographical information and removal of some of the boasting. However, the subject does appear to meet the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC. Some of his articles at Google Scholar have been cited hundreds of times. --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject has a couple cited papers, but he is not the first author on them. The rest of the article is unverified boasting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etraindown (talk • contribs) 03:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one book, Black-Scholes and beyond option pricing models, currently in more than 500 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article needs de-Peacock-ing and a bit of Slash-and-Burn editing, but the core of it is sound. People may not like vain hedge-fund managers, but Chriss is notable for a range of reasons. Here he is in the New York Times Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've de-fluffed it a bit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:PROF. SL93 (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. Assuming that the unattributed statements objected to in the prod could be referenced, would there be any rationale for deletion left? If not, I vote weak keep. (Lack of references is not grounds for deletion.) Otherwise, I would need to see a clearer deletion rationale. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2011 (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.