Talk:Stephen Cameron

Notability
It appears Wikipedia user 'Limit-theorem' challenged the notability of this bio. They write, "It appears that only notability/visibility is coauthoring articles with Heckman."

I do not agree, pointing to the following criteria, all of which alone would establish notability individually under Wikipedia guidelines.


 * 1) The subject was extensively mentioned by name in lengthy articles about his work in major newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune and New York Times, which are cited in the biography with URLs to the original articles. These major newspaper sources alone would normally be sufficient to establish notability under Wikipedia WPPROF notability guidelines. The subject is an adjunct professor at Columbia University as evidenced by the cited source (Columbia's own website) and therefore WPPROF notability guidelines apply.
 * 2) The suggestion is somehow made that the subject is not notable because some of the work was done in collaboration with a very famous and extremely notable economist, the Nobel Laureate James Heckman. Although being associated with an extremely notable person does not, in and of itself, make someone notable, it certain cannot be used against the subject. That is, being associated with a very famous economist does not, as Limit theorem's comment would seem to imply, make the subject automatically unnotable. Moreover, while the association with the extremely notable individual does not, by itself, make the subject notable, it does add support to other factors.
 * 3) The subject has an h-index of 13 on Google scholar on peer-reviewed humanities papers. Per Wikipedia notability guidelines, the h-limit cut-off for humanities is normally 10 per archived discussions on Wikipedia. The subject was primary author on most of these papers. Although some were co-authored with Heckman, it is not clear why co-authorship with an extremely famous individual would somehow make the papers less notable.
 * 4) The subject has been cited thousands of times on peer-reviewed academic papers, with some individual papers themselves being cited thousands of times. Again, subject was a primary author on many of these papers. In the opinion of Wikipedians, this alone has been enough to establish credibility in the past. See the discussion under Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)/Archive_6. Wikipedian Crusio writes, in response to a question, "Several papers with hundreds of citations and thousands of citations in total? Absolutely notable. --Crusio (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)" By that criteria, subject is easily "absolutely notable", as several of his papers on which he is primary author well exceed this criteria.

There are additional factors beyond the clear-cut individual criteria outlined above. The fact that the subject is an academic on the faculty at Columbia University, a major research university in the field, while not alone establishing notability, is an additional supporting factor in favor of his notability. (Specifically, it further counters the argument that his notable merely because of an association with another famous individual, as the economics department at Colubmia would not have made him a former associate professor (currently adjunct associate professor) if he had not made substantial contributions to papers on which he was primary author! Furthermore, holding management positions at Wall Street firms already listed in Wikipedia as themselves notable, while not sufficient in establishing notability, are supporting factors that bolster the overall case for notability.

Therefore, I strongly object to the assertion that subject is notable merely because of his association with Heckman. 'Limit-theorem' does seem to admit the subject is notable, simply disagrees as to extent, i.e., 'only notable/visible for', but that is already an admission of notability. At a minimum, any assertion of a lack of notability under Wikipedia guidelines is hereby contested. Dk3298371 (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * An "adjunct professor"  is usually not notable unless he/she has other achievements (while the subject appears to have a minor role in the finance community). Subject is not even full adjunct: "Adjunt associate professor". Even being a full professors is not sufficient: there are tens of thousands of professors who do not have a wikipedia page. And there are thousands of professors with "peer review" who do not make the mark. Please keep notability tag until other editors discuss the point. Limit-theorem (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Subject was previously a tenure-track faculty at Columbia (associate professor rather than adjunct professor) before leaving for Wall Street; Columbia continued to retain him as adjunct professor. The fact that he was formerly a non-adjunct professor at Columbia negates your slur against adjunct professors (which is really intended here by Columbia as an additional honor to keep someone on the faculty who has otherwise left for the private sector.) Moreover, wikipedia guidelines clearly discuss h-index as being sufficient to establish notability on its own, individual papers having hundreds of citations with thousands of citations in total. Subject is at a top Ivy League university in his field which further adds to his credibility; there are not tends of thousands of Ivy league professors! Since writing the biography, additional secondary sources have come to light about the subject. Subject has been featured in the New York Times at least 3 times, including 2 front page articles. Subject has been featured on NPR, appeared in an ABC News with Peter Jennings segment called "The American Agenda" which was devoted to covering his research, and there are further mainstream references. Perhaps someone with access to Lexis Nexis can add these citations; I will try to dig them up in the meantime and add them to the article. My initial research only came up with the two New York Times and two Chicago Tribune articles on his research, and those are the ones I included in the article with URLs. I'm very, very surprised this is the least bit controversial given those four citations alone, in the full context of the rest of his work. Is being featured on ABC News with Peter Jennings or twice on the front page of the NYT notable enough for Wikipedia? Dk3298371 (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Limit-theorem. I have gone through your list of past contributions to Wikipedia and note that you frequently remove people from the List of Quantitative Analysts. Per the talk page for that list, that is not a list of people noted for being quantitative analysts, rather people on Wikipedia (possibly notable for other reasons) who happen to be or have been quantitative analysts. That being said, there appears to be no consensus about what makes one notable as a quantitative analyst. (Subject had title of 'quant' at a top-5 quant hedge fund, but discussions on the list centered dubious criteria involving 'quant' in the title of an autobiography, publications in single group of journals (Risk). There was no consensus. Since subject here is notable for many other reasons, I consider this a red herring in this discussion.


 * I am somewhat concerned about Limit-theorem's characterization of subject as seeming to have only 'minor' role in finance community. Subject has held title of partner and worked at top-5 hedge funds, as well as finance-related position on faculty of Columbia University. I don't about this subject, but I can imagine some subjects with that caliber of career becoming uncomfortable with or objecting to that kind of characterization. It does not seem factual and in my opinion may slight the subject.


 * I'm going to restate arguments for notability in view of this discussion.


 * 1) Subject is notable under WP:ANY for having made lasting historical contributions to the field of GED testing, which received widespread, lengthy coverage by mainstream news organizations over a period of decadss (front pages of NYT, Chicago Tribune, Nightly News with Peter Jennings, NPR, etc.)
 * 2) Subject is notable under guidelines for WP:NEWS for being closely connected with the GED testing controversy over a period of decades, which received aforementioned media coverage (including lengthy mention of subject) as previously described
 * 3) Subject is notable under guidelines for WP:PROF for being a former associate professor for many years on the faculty of Columbia University, for currently being an adjunct associate professor on the faculty of the same university, for having more than 3000 citations with several papers receiving hundreds or nearly a thousand citations individually in some cases, according to Google Scholar. Subject is further notable for having an h-index of greater than 13 per Google scholar, higher than the normal cut-off for establishing notability for h-index alone on Wikipedia. Subject is further notable under WP:PROF for being the subject of previously mentioned mainstream media coverage over a period of decades in connection with his academic expertise and research, which itself became a news event.
 * 4) Subject has secondary, supporting criteria for notability, which do not establish notability outright but add support: subject was a student of very notable economist and Nobel Laureate James Heckman, and subject has held title of 'quantitative analyst' and senior management titles at Wall Street firms, including firms such as Citadel which are top-5 quantitative trading firms globally. Subject also has obtained significant awards (Sloan Dissertation Fellow) which have not yet been added to the article. Dk3298371 (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

3rd opinion request
Since we to be at a standstill with user Limit-theorem, who has requested in an edit comment that a third editor opinion is needed on Notability. I am therefore going to formally request a 3rd opinion. I have already added tags requesting review by WikiProject Economics. In looking at user Limit-theorem's past edit history, it seems as though he frequently disputes the notability of persons added to the List of quantitative analysts. I have removed the subject from that list in the interest of reducing controversy; as discussed above subject is notable for many other reasons, and there do not seem to be clear criteria established for quantitative finance notability. However, since Limit-theorem has undone my edits to at least two articles (this subject's biography and List of quantitative analysts) I have also posted the conflict to the dispute resolution noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dk3298371 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Your request for a Third Opinion has been removed/declined because Third Opinion, like DRN and formal mediation, requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. Limit-theorem has only one posting here. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which I make here. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 04:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, while the formal request was declined, the link in TransporterMan's comment does provide a suggested procedure that outlines a path forward on this. So I would like to thank TransporterMan for his contribution here, and begin following the steps in the document.Dk3298371 (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for Discussion
After appropriate discussion or time, I am planning to remove the Notability tag (assuming no one else removes it first). Although I am not aware of specific Wikipedia policies that prevent me from removing the tag immediately, I would like to see greater discussion of this matter first.

Also, I would like to solicit feedback on the article in general from subject matter experts in Economics, Biography, or any of the subject's other fields, as well as persons with expertise on Wikimedia Notability guidelines. I'm also very interested in anyone with additional secondary sources/information on the subject, or suggestions on how this biography can be expanded or improved.

Does anyone object to me removing the Notability tag in consideration of the new arguments and newly discovered secondary sources described above. If there are further objections, can you elaborate? Dk3298371 (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

 I've asked twice that you please discuss this matter. I'm going to go ahead and make the change I've described above. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at ANI for disruptive editing. — Dk3298371 (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC).

Closing the discussion in this section due to peer review results coming in. If someone wants to re-open this, please start a new section. Dk3298371 (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review Results
I would like thank all those who participated in the recently completed peer review. (See the archived link in the peer review banner at the top of this page.) I like most of the suggestions, and will see if I can find time to implement them over the next months. (If someone else wants to beat me to the punch, please feel free.) In the meantime, does anyone have sources for the reviewers' suggested early life or anecdotal/funny quotes sections? Also, it was suggested that some of the citations were over-kill and could be removed. While I tend to agree, the logic behind the admitted over-kill was partially motivated to address an earlier discussion on this Talk page (see the now-closed earlier Request for Discussion section). I would therefore prefer the citation cleanup to be done by editors other than myself (or at least with their input). Dk3298371 (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)