Talk:Tobias Adrian

3
The FAZ and Economista articles and Goethe-Universitaet bio meet WP:SIGCOV criteria. Independent of media coverage, the subject is a notable WP:ACADEMIC. I have included under Selected Works his articles with more than 1,000 citations. Hanjaf1 (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Hanjaf1,
 * The FAZ and Economista articles and Goethe-Universitaet bio? For convenience, could you link them here please? Two or three sources are all that are needed to demonstrate notability, and they are lost in the many non-independent sources also used.
 * Notable per WP:ACADEMIC? Can you please quote the specific section of ACADEMIC that you are referring to? SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly --


 * WP:ACADEMIC criterion 1, the person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources (Many highly cited academic articles, per Google Scholar) and criterion 7, the person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity (impact on US economy/policy at the Fed, global economy at the IMF.)
 * Google Scholar. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=KAit8lUAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:ACADEMIC criterion 1, the person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources (Many highly cited academic articles, per Google Scholar) and criterion 7, the person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity (impact on US economy/policy at the Fed, global economy at the IMF.)
 * Google Scholar. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=KAit8lUAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=KAit8lUAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

2
I do not see sources that are independent of the subject that comment on the subject.

For demonstrating notability, sources from his employer (IMF), or sources that are authored by him, do not count. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

1
I've been corresponding with the draft author. This should definitely get approved eventually. I'm asking him to fix a few things where the article's statements aren't completely supported by the sources. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I just accepted. It is definitely good enough to get out of AfC. Fixing things is easier in mainspace, please continue. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Tobias’ publications are non third party publications.
"Adrian has published extensively on the topic of market liquidity, including policy effects and its procyclical behavior. He has also written on the importance of the shadow banking system in capital markets, and its prominent role in the development of the financial crisis of 2007–2008." This is a prosified list of selection publications. Is there any independent coverage of these publications? Who says that it is extensive? What impact have the publications had? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * With respect, those are primary sources, so they are covered by the other tag that you put on the page. Hanjaf1 (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Hanjaf1, sure. They can be called both primary and first person sources, the overlap is large. My point is that what is lacking is comment on the impact of these publications.  Are there any publications that explicitly refer to these publications?
 * Tobias has written on the importance of the shadow banking system, but does Tobias' writing on the importance of the shadow banking system have any importance? Has anyone said or done anything different as a result of Tobias' writings? SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)