Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyn Squire

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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyn Squire[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 don't see any reliable source secondary coverage on this person. I do see a lot of primary sources - stuff Lyn Squire himself wrote. Unfortunately, that does not meet WP:GNG. His writings claim a few mid-level positions at the World Bank, but I can't even find coverage of those in secondary sources. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 22:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Wales, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Msrasnw (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to me (the article creator) a clear keep. As has produced a substantial body of academic research (with some rather high citation scores: see Google Scholar and with lots of well known co-authors (though this is only indicative of (and doesn't count for) notability)) and was editor of a well-established academic journal in their subject area. The Economic Analysis of Projects is really famous in SCBA world as the WBs summary of , operationalisation of the OECD approach. The interview at the World Bank - Oral History is interesting and the little bio at the LSE/Oxfords IGC seem reliable enough to me. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
No coverage by reliable independent sources about the subject of the article or any of his work as an individual thought leader. If the subject was really notable, he would have received some coverage given the notability of the World Bank. The high citation count of the co-authored papers at World Bank publications are more of an indication that the subject had some notable good friends at the World Bank. Contributor892z (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV and no claim that meets any of the 7 rules at WP:ACADEMIC. Some citations at Google Scholar but not enough for notability I think. Contributor892z (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Heavy citations on Google Scholar (multiple works with four-digit citation counts) pass WP:PROF#C1. Reviews of Employment Policy in Developing Countries (JSTOR 1973175, JSTOR 2726474) and Agricultural Household Models (JSTOR 2726474, JSTOR 1242324, ProQuest 1311343250, doi:10.1016/0304-3878(88)90028-4) also give him a weak pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only 6 publications with four digit citation counts. I don’t think it’s enough for WP:PROF#C1.Contributor892z (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of like saying "only one Nobel prize. I don't think it's enough." Most academics would be very happy if even a single one of their publications did so well. If this were high energy physics where collaborations of hundreds of authors routinely get more citations than that, it would be different, but in this case all publications have few authors. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are World Bank publications. They are not subject to academic peer review and yet always get thousands of citations. And the subject wasn’t notable enough within the World Bank to get a page at the World Bank website. This Wiki page looks more like hidden publicity for the fiction book being written by the subject. Contributor892z (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Contributor892z, I think looking at Squire on Google Scholar he has well cited publications in several of the most respected (by academic economics and development) peer-reviewed journals: The American Economic Review (US's AEA leading Journal) , the UK's leading society's (RES) journal the Economic Journal, the Review of Economics and Statistics, Journal of development economics, Economic Development and Cultural Change, amongst others. (Also I think the World Bank Economic Review is itself peer-reviewed.) I created the page because I used the Economics of Project Analysis years ago and was now using it again and looked up Squire (and Van der Tak) to find out about them. The novel surprised me, but I thought it interesting, and I am can assure you I am in no way acting with any COI and was not intending to do hidden publicity for his new book, Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)).[reply]

Re "And the subject wasn’t notable enough within the World Bank to get a page at the World Bank website.": please don't state obvious falsehoods. [1] is a page about him at the World Bank web site, for one. There may be others but they're difficult to find among the many many pages reporting work by him at the World Bank web site. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you found a page. I couldn’t find it, so thanks for finding it. But, still, nothing notable. His employer was notable, but his role wasn’t. And notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.Contributor892z (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with Contributor892z (talk). WP:PROF#C1 specifically says if their "research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline" - these World Bank papers are not, by any stretch of the imagination, research that has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline. They are not the same thing as peer-reviewed academic publications. Andrei Shleifer is an economist with significant academic work in his field. Lyn Squire is just a guy who had a job at the World Bank for years and now self-published a non-notable book. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-publishing a non-notable book does nothing to negate other notable contributions. But I think this should remain omitted unless we can find reliable secondary sources. I don't think an author-association member profile counts as reliable for this purpose. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You ignored my main point - he does not have other notable contributions. His World Bank documents are not peer-reviewed academic publications. There is no reliable secondary source coverage of him, and so he fails WP:GNG by that criteria alone. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fred Zepelin: so, just for avoidance of doubt, are advocating for deleting the article or are you just giving a neutral comment?Contributor892z (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Fred Zepelin (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for sake of clarity, are you seriously trying to argue that American Economic Review, Journal of Development Economics, and The Economic Journal are not peer-reviewed academic journals? It seems you are joining Contributor892z in cluttering this AfD with obvious falsehoods. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have taken this personally. The paper published under his name at American Economic Review was just a discussion piece from a conference so it really didn't follow the standard peer review process. Contributor892z (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take it personally when people waste the time of multiple other editors with ridiculous arguments at AfDs and risk producing an outcome based on falsehood. It makes me wonder why you are arguing so hard that you exceed the truth rather than taking a properly neutral fact-finding approach. It also makes me wonder why you two Zs are completing each other's thoughts (the question about academic publications was really intended for the other Z) making it very confusing for me to keep straight who is who. I suppose one of you has some similar argument why all of his other academic publications are not actually academic publications despite their prima facie appearance? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No argument here. His two or three publications at the other journals are actually academic publications. And then loads of sponsored work for a notable employer, which are not actually academic publications. Contributor892z (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re The World Bank Economic Review is a respected peer-reviewed academic journal: my understanding is that the WBER is a respected (by academic economics (and especially by professional academic development economics) peer-reviewed academic journal. On it website it has a descripion of its peer-review process. A peer reviewed article in JEEA (Pantelis Kalaitzidakis, Theofanis P. Mamuneas, Thanasis Stengos, Rankings of Academic Journals and Institutions in Economics, Journal of the European Economic Association, Volume 1, Issue 6, 1) list it in 37th place (see page 1349) - ahead of what I thought was the leading development economics journal (The Journal of Development Economics). Heckman & Moktan (Heckman, J. J., & Moktan, S. (2020). Publishing and promotion in economics: The tyranny of the top five. Journal of Economic Literature, 58(2), 419-470.) include it in their data set of academic economic journals. Liner & Amin (Liner, G. H., & Amin, M. (2004). Methods of ranking economics journals. Atlantic Economic Journal, 32, 140-149.) include it in their data set of academic economic journals and as it 7th in terms of X-citations in international economics journals (p. 142). Articles in it seem to me clearly academic publications. Does any one have information to the contrary? (Msrasnw (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)) ((Letting User:Contributor892z & User:Fred Zepelin know about this contribution))[reply]

@Msrasnw: the referees are from inside the World Bank. It's not an independent source, a requirement for notability. Contributor892z (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? My understanding is the WBER has lots of reviewers, most in fact, who are not at the WB. Where have you got this from? (Msrasnw (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

[citation needed]. Its chief editors are not from the World Bank. Most of its editorial board is not from the world bank. Its information for authors welcomes submissions from non-affiliates of the World Bank and explicitly says that consistency with World Bank policy is not relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: and @Msrasnw: I really don’t want to move this away from the focus, which is the notability of the subject, but I do find it relevant to raise here that there are other independent and reliable sources that don’t trust the independence of World Bank research [2]. So this is not just my personal opinion. Contributor892z (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see lots of highly cited journal articles and books for NPROF, and I think it's enough even in what can be a higher citation field, particularly as a fair bit of the work predates the internet era. I also take seriously the NAUTHOR case outlined by David Eppstein above. The combination of the two cases is solid. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. IDEAS/RePEc lists him in their "top 10%" ranking of worldwide economists: [3]. His position on the listing, #2224, may not sound impressive, but we have a significantly larger number of articles on economists than that. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, nobody gets a good job at the World Bank without having some skills. But there are plenty of other good people out there that are top 10% of their profession and aren’t notable people. The rules for notability are clear. So the only question we have here is if his publication record is enough to satisfy WP:PROF#C1 and my opinion is that his publication record is not enough given that his most cited work came from publications in vehicles of his employer, which are questionable for research independence. He had a good job at a notable employer, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Contributor892z (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everyone who publishes academically does so under the official affiliation of their employer. Publishing while having an employer does not invalidate one's publications and does not have any relevance to WP:PROF#C1 notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s forget for a moment it’s Lyn Squire and let’s pretend is a top 10% tech researcher that does research for Google, for clear profit seeking reasons. And most of their well-known material came from publications made by or sponsored by Google. We probably would be closer to an agreement that this researcher is not notable just because of their research output. And now let’s come back to Lyn Squire. Shall we have a different conclusion just because it’s the World Bank (not for profit) instead of Google (profit seeking)? Contributor892z (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least you're consistent in packing this AfD with false and bogus arguments. We have plenty of articles on researchers at Google and Microsoft, notable among other reasons through their academic publications. Natasha Noy, Cynthia Dwork, and Mary Czerwinski are all examples. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per WP:NPROF, it doesn't matter who he works for. To expand on my keep rationale, I see at least three papers with citation counts in the 1000s that were published in well-established journals; also a long tail of papers with a reasonable number of citations. In addition, e.g. the book Economic Analysis of Projects was published by a reputable academic publisher, was reprinted several times, was translated into other languages, etc. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that he has three papers with high citation numbers from independent journals (where he wasn’t the main author though, so he may have contributed little). If that’s enough for notability, then so be it. But I don’t think it is, especially given that he wasn’t the lead author. The book doesn’t really help meeting WP:NAUTHOR unless it was the primary subject of multiple reliable independent reviews attesting the significance of the contribution of the book, which I don’t think it was. Contributor892z (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In many fields, such as economics or mathematics, the convention is that authors are listed alphabetically. In assessing WP:NPROF, I am exactly looking for several high impact papers, such as these. Meanwhile, the highly cited book _certainly_ helps meet WP:NPROF. Reviews of it include [4][5]. Other reviews of Squire's books include [6] (an edited volume), [7]. There are likely others, as much of Squire's work was before the internet era. C'mon. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Multiple publications with 1k+ citations is a clear WP:NPROF#1 pass. As stated above, c'mon. Curbon7 (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good case for passing WP:PROF#C1, and a weaker one for passing WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2024 (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.