Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Shapiro

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. Needs some more work, but notability requirements appear to be just met (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Shapiro[edit]

His notability is asserted in the article, however he does not seem to satisfy WP:PROF at this time freshacconci talktalk 12:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He appears to satisfy criterion 7 of WP:PROF, having made "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity"- largely by virtue of a single paper on bias in the media that made a number of waves. See http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12510893 for the highest-profile example I can find. -Toptomcat (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was also mentionaed by The Economist as one of the best young economist. http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12851150. He also appeared in the RePec Ideas ranking: http://ideas.repec.org/top/top.young.html 23:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raulbajob (talk • contribs) — Raulbajob (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My usual position is that most assistant professors have not yet had time to demonstrate their notability, but there are exceptions, and he seems to be one. The bias paper is not even his most cited; it has 130 citations in Google scholar, while another on the economics of obesity has 387, and he has two more with 77 each. He seems to already be a star, and deserving of his position at one of the top business schools in the country. I think he passes WP:PROF #1 already based on the academic impact his works have had, and possibly #7 based on the media coverage pointed out by Toptomcat and Raulbajob. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I do not use citation counts from GS the same way as from Scopus or WoS--they count material from a very wide range of sources. For peer-reviewed work in science and social science , only citations in other peer-reviewed sources are relevant for an academic. But in this case the GS results for the obesity paper, for the first 200, 90% are good academic sources ( the percentage drops sharply further down to include miscellaneous academic web results) Comparing to an actual citation count in Scopus, It lists for the obesity paper 127 citations, and for the bias one 22. The other papers are 19. 18, 12, 11. 8, 6, 2 We can argue which is the more relevant, but for comparison of different scholar Scopus has the advantage of being a professionally prepared database with known criteria using known sources. A difference of 2:1 or 3:1 between GS and Scopus (or WoS) is pretty usual -- the more the work has diverse non-technical appeal, the higher the ratio. The real question is what to do about academics whose work attracts popular attention--typically due to the choice of a timely subject, or one that catches the public eye. It does not make them more notable academics to a fellow academic. It may make them more notable in a general public sense. She probably is notable on that. (that's why there's the escape clause in WP:PROF that other factors must also be taken into account)., DGG (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2009 (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.