Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Leef

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Leef[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)

Fails WP:NBIO -- People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. There are no reliable secondary sources cited in this article at all - every citation is a self-published biography from an organization they worked for, or an article they wrote. A search reveals no substantial sources which would be used here - they simply haven't been biographically discussed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all of the primary sources - that leaves literally no sources. This version shows what it was like - a bunch of PR biography blurbs from organizations he worked for, and a bunch of links to articles he wrote. Not a single published secondary source independent of the subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment ~~Spiderone~~ this is because of WP:NPROF is specifically designed for academics which often are not well covered elsewhere. But in this case it seems that GNG apply and not NPROF. However, here I dont really see a good argument for NPROF here, so in that case GNG would apply. --hroest 17:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hannes Röst - hi, you might have intended this comment to be a response to a different user. Thanks Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, sorry. --hroest 17:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject's notability is established pretty clearly and in a way not unusual for academics, think tank personnel and journalists. Tillander 13:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are no reliable secondary sources cited? If someone is notable, secondary sources will have written about them. The article currently cites nothing but PR blurbs written by organizations he's worked for. Those aren't independent sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment NorthBySouthBaranof see my comment above, under WP:NPROF no secondary sources are needed. But the question is whether NPROF can apply here. --hroest 17:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete it seems WP:NAUTHOR would have to apply here or WP:NPROF#8 as the editor of a journal, but it seems this was more of a magazine and not a well regarded academic journal so it will not count. I found very few reviews of his work on JSTOR or Google scholar. Only [1] this review, actually. GS says his book has 15 citations in 16 years which is way too low for WP:NPROF. --hroest 17:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject is an author published by a traditional publishing house and is an academic often called upon by magazines and newspapers to opine on education topics and current events, as in The Hill, Forbes and The New Yorker. Clearly a notable journalist and academic. Passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment none of the articles you linked have more than a passing mention of the subject, eg Forbes "Enter my friend George Leef of the James Martin Center, who told me about some new research by one of America’s foremost labor economists, Edward Lazear of Stanford." and the article is then about Edward Lazear. --hroest 17:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to having only a passing mention, the Forbes item is a "contributor" piece and thus should be avoided, per WP:FORBESCON. XOR'easter (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only potential case for notability seems to be through WP:AUTHOR and his two books. I found one published review of one of them (the same one found by hroest) but that's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically per David Eppstein. Merely having written does not imply notability; we need evidence that the subject's writings have been influential, and the occasional passing mention doesn't cut it. XOR'easter (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RS PBS News hour referred to him among "vocal and influential public figures". His work has been the primary basis of subsequent academic papers, such as the one in UC Davis Business Law Journal. RS Washington Post referred to him as a "commentator".Nweil (talk) 18:28, 29 March 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.