Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Reisman (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. Insufficient substantive and independent secondary sources to establish notability. Jayjg (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Arnold Reisman
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

There is continued discussion if he meets our inclusion guidelines. I find it to be close, with the only significant claim toward WP:PROF being his h-index. There was an AfD in May that was closed as keep, but it certainly wasn't a strong keep. See for ANI-related issues. There seems to be a sense that this belongs at AfD. This is a procedural nomination--I'm neutral. Hobit (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also see Articles for deletion/Reisman, Arnold, September 2006. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 06:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. There appear to be several Arnold Reismans publishing scholarly articles, so care must be taken when calculating his h-index. I note that this Reisman published an article on "A citation analysis of the technology innovation management journals", suggesting that he knows his way around getting cited in the right places. What needs to be done is to compare his citation record with other people in his field, not to just say that an h-index of "x" is proof that he passes WP:PROF point #1. Also, it is difficult to ascertain what advancements he is known for making, even in the version of the article with the most text. Abductive  (reasoning) 11:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep A more focused Gscholar search (limiting to business, administration, finance, and economics) still returned a respectable h-index (15 or so). His book on Turkey's Modernization also garnered some number of serious reviews, the most prominent of which was in Nature . I suspect he passes some combination of WP:PROF and WP:AUTH.  Ray  Talk 23:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Reisman is sometimes cited by other scholars, though not as much as other economists without biography articles such as Donovan Young and Elwood S. Buffa. I think that edit warring at the article will have to be addressed through user blocks and sanctions, not by deleting this article. Continue with the Whac-A-Mole strategy. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reisman is a former academic at the Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. There's nothing that I can see about his work there that would make him notable, or that would give us any secondary sources to write a bio with. The only thing that might make him notable is a series of books he wrote about Turkey and the Holocaust after retiring, listed here on Amazon. But it turns out that they're all self-published. Reisman has written a blog post on how to use the Web, including Wikipedia, to self-promote books, and someone has been spamming his book titles into various WP articles. Fladrif found some reviews of his books, but it's not clear that they're enough to write a bio with. The article was created and has been edited almost entirely by accounts associated with Reisman and his wife. If the article is kept we're going to have ongoing problems with them trying to add that he has spoken here, or been invited there, as though the page is his personal website. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there any precedent for considering potential future problems with the article as a replacement as opposed to notability itself? I don't want to say that it's a WP:CRYSTAL argument, but I'd prefer to stick to notability itself (and some good arguments to delete can be raised along those lines). Kansan (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I take your point, but it's simply another consideration added to the mix. If Reisman was clearly notable, then dealing with the mishegas of his attempting to own the article would be worthwhile, but since the subject is only borderline anyway... Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the main point here, Kansan, is that there just aren't enough sources to write up a bio, which is one of the reasons there were attempts to fill it out with his invitations to speak in various places. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete after thinking about it, as the sources that would best prove notability do appear to be self published. Kansan (talk) 05:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The information that Fladrif pointed to on the article's talk page would certainly help flesh out the article (which is why it's so strange that the editor who is so concerned about the article hasn't yet used them to do so), but I don't think they would fundamentally change the subject's notability problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found the following non-trivial reviews of at least one of his books by reliable (scholarly, even) secondary sources. The article talk page was way too long, so forgive me if these were there too; I skimmed it and couldn't find them, but it was just too long for a thorough read.
 * "Turkey's Modernization: Refugees from Nazism and Ataturk's Vision – By Arnold Reisman", Kemal H. Karpat, Historian, Volume 70, Issue 1, pages 95–97, Spring 2008.
 * "The German-Turk Miracle: Arnold Reisman’s Turkey’s Modernization", Yakup Bektas, Technology and Culture Vol. 48 No. 4 (October 2007)
 * "Turkey’s Modernization: Refugees from Nazism and Ataturk’s Vision", by Arzu Ozturkmen Oral History Review, Volume 35, Number 1, Winter/Spring 2008, pp. 91-93 (Review), Published by Oxford University Press
 * "Turkey’s Modernization: Refugees from Nazism and Atatürk’s Vision", by Aaron Ranck, Turkish Studies, 01 September 2008.
 * --GRuban (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Contrary to comments above, Reisman comes nowhere near satisfying either WP:PROF or WP:AUTH (which don't operate in "combination"). Anyone stating he meets these or anyother guidelines should do so with specificity.  Four short reviews of one publication isn't enough. EEng (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note to remark that if the article is kept on the basis of these short reviews, then it obviously needs to be rewritten to integrate those reviews into it, because if that's the basis of his notability, the article as is doesn't reflect it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read the reviews. As expected, they don't change the non-notability. EEng (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * His book Turkey’s Modernization probably deserves an article given the number of reviews it has. But Reisman has published mostly outside that field, and his bio here is focused mainly on his other publications, which don't seem that notable. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * His Managerial and Engineering Economics book had an honorable mention by INFORMS. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ...which gushes, "The Committee has concluded that none of the nominated works were sufficiently meritorious in enough of the criteria considered in determining prize-worthiness to warrant being awarded the 1970 Lanchester Prize." EEng (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Self-promotion in any venue raises the question of whether the sources in the article are really independent of the subject, casting doubt on whether we can write a genuinely neutral article based on those sources. That is (in my view) part of why BIO (for general subjects) sets a higher standard of documentation than PROF: because PROF subjects (in general, with exceptions) are less likely to self-promote, it's easier to write neutrally from what's available when there's not copious material to work with. In this case the self-promotion is a given, so I choose to evaluate the article under general BIO rather than PROF.  IMO, for living subjects in self-promoting fields, even the BIO standards are already way too low, but I don't think this subject meets BIO even in the wimpy way BIO is currently written.  Even PROF is at best barely met.  BIO calls for substantial secondary biographical sources that are at least nominally independent of the subject, and I don't see any independent biographical sources of any sort cited in the article, let alone substantial ones. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, none of the sources thus far provided remotely demonstrate notability. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The reviews found by GRuban would suggest, as Tijfo says also (if I read them correctly), that that one book might could be notable--I certainly wouldn't oppose an article on that book. But a set of reviews (they're not that short--they seem fine to me) on one of an author's books, with nothing else to go on, that's not enough for a biographical article. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 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.