Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Swersey

:{{la|Arthur Swersey}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arthur_Swersey Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Arthur Swersey}})

Biography of an academic who appears to have been hired on the basis of a successful but non-notable consulting career, and who does not pass the notability guidelines for academics. His publications are few (for an academic of his level) and not particularly well cited (top citations less than 100, and an h-index of only 11, both very low for an Ivy League full professor in a technical subject), and I only found one book review of one book (listed in the article), so I don't think he passes WP:PROF#C1 nor WP:AUTHOR. I found no other evidence of passing the other WP:PROF criteria, and other than the book review the only other independent source we have is a wedding announcement. I tried prodding this, but {{u|DGG}} deprodded it, citing as evidence that he had published a book (not the book currently mentioned in the article, a different one that turns out to be an edited volume rather than something actually written by the subject, with no reviews). I don't think that's adequate, and I don't see any other reason for keeping this one. Usually full professors at good universities end up passing the criteria and being kept, but I think this one could be an exception. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete; Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Nothing of particular interest here, and no claim to fame. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment To save anyone the trouble of looking for it behind the paywall, the NYT reference is just an marriage announcement--not an advertisement, but one they include in the news section, and irrelevant to notability; I'm not certain the degree to which they even verify the facts ) DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Keep I consider that anyone whom Yale considers sufficiently important in his subject to give a full professorship to is notable; they are better placed to judge it than we are. David E, are you seriously saying that they would make this appointment to someone who is not an expert in their field? I'm not at all sure of the citation standards in the special area in which he works, but there are many fields of applied science where the actual citation figures are rather low. Looking at the google scholar results for "emergency deployment", his chapter is the 6th most heavily cited item. There are apparently two books Testing 1-2-3: Experimental Design with Applications in Marketing and Service Operations for which he is coauthor, and Delivery of urban services : with a view towards applications in management science and operations research for which he is co-editor; I agree this does not meet N:AUTHOR. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm sure they had good reasons for making this appointment, which I intended to convey with my remark about "successful but not notable" — it appears that this may be an appointment grounded in practical work rather than academic impact. But I think that unless there is publicly available evidence for the significance of his work (of the kind that might well have been available privately to the Yale hiring committee) then we have no basis for an article here. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Being given a full professorship by Yale does not meet any notability creteria. Only being the a holder of a named chair can make a professor notable for such. Nothing else about him passes notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG above. His field has little literature per se, and he's widely cited within it. It's a mere stub, and his notability is at least enough for that. If there's potential for expansion in the future, we can discuss appropriate sources for it. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - searches showed nothing which would meet the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMICS. Don't agree with the assessment that being a professor at Yale qualifies. Per criteria #5 of WP:NACADEMICS, that simply isn't enough. And can find nothing which says this person meets any of the 9 criteria for academics. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.