Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Kritzman

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

:({{Find sources AFD|Mark Kritzman}})

I question whether this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and policies for two reasons: notability as an academic, and general notability as business and business concepts.

There is [http://mitsloan.mit.edu/faculty-and-research/faculty-directory/detail/?id=41156 no doubt at all] that Mr Kitzman is a faculty member of the MIT Sloan School of Management. It is mentioned in the article that he is on the editorial board of some purported scholarly journals: Emerging Markets Review, Financial Analysts Journal, Journal of Alternative Investments, Journal of Derivatives and so on. Perhaps Wikipedia articles have yet to be written about them? From what I can see, http://www.iijournals.com/ is not a publisher or scholarly journals, it is a publisher of high-end investment advice. In my opinion, this article fails the criteria set out in WP:NACADEMICS.

The article mentions a number of companies and concepts associated with Mr Kitzman.

• [Windham Capital Management is not listed on the NYSE
• New Amsterdam Partners is not listed on the NYSE
• There is a [https://www.google.com.au/search?lr=&hl=en-AU&as_qdr=all&q=%22Turbulence+index%22+Kritzman&oq=%22Turbulence+index%22+Kritzman paucity of evidence] in reliable sources that Mr Kritzman was involved in the concept of a "turbulence index".
• There is a [https://www.google.com.au/search?lr=&hl=en-AU&as_qdr=all&q="Absorption+ratio"+Kritzman&oq="Absorption+ratio"+Kritzman&gs paucity of evidence] in reliable sources that Mr Kritzman was involved in the concept of a "absorption ratio".

Neither "turbulence index" or "absorption ratio" appear to be terms used in mainstream business or economics.

In my opinion, this article do not meet Companies guidelines, and as well the general notability guidelines. Shirt58 (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. A look at GScholar results seems to produce an h-index of 27 - quite impressive for someone who is not primarily an academic, though I am not sure whether it meets what we generally expect for WP:NACADEMICS#1 in this field. And we also have to allow for the fact that h-index calculations using GScholar can frequently be overestimates, and this is particularly likely to be the case in a field like this. Having said that, on a casual glance, enough of the citations seem to be coming from academically respectable journals that I would not be surprised by a more rigorously calculated h-index of about 24 and would not expect one of below 20. PWilkinson (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - Multiple publications by the textbook publishers Wiley and McGraw-Hill indicate academic notability sufficient to support encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Draft instead because these listed books are actually only co-authored and while WorldCat lists a large number of holdings (WorldCar is largely actually listing the other men instead, not Mark himself), his own notable article is therefore still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 10 July 2016 (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.