Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur A. Stein


 * 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   keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Arthur A. Stein

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This professor does not seem to be notable. If anything, it seems like an autobiography. Logan Talk Contributions 18:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject is notable. The article simply needs wikifying as per tags. --Technopat (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have removed the majority of the article as being a copyright violation - while it is factual information, how it is presented can still be copyrighted. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, highly cited political scientist, easily passes WP:PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment With the only refs being to a magazine he's connected with, and to his own publication (and a link to his own website), I'm not so sure of the notability. How about getting it demonstrated? Peridon (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works -- notability is demonstrated by the available sources, not by the sources currently used on the article. To see what's available, use the searches linked above -- that's why they're there.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, why isn't more cited in the article? That's not reliable independent sourcing to my mind. That's 'in-house' stuff which can't establish notability. Peridon (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Needs expansion and attention of an expert, but the subject fairly clearly satisfies WP:ACADEMIC. Citability data in GoogleScholar and GoogleBooks is quite impressive. Also, several journal editorships including currently being an Editor of American Political Science Review, which is the number 1 publication in political science, in terms of prestige and the JCR impact factor. Nsk92 (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Well-known political scientist. Article needs work, but subject is self-evidently prominent within his field as per editorship post and GoogleScholar stats.Minnowtaur (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google scholar shows over 500 citations for his "Coordination and collaboration: regimes in an anarchic world", four publications with over 100 citations, and an h-index of around 14. I think that's enough for a pass of WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep based on past outcomes at AfD interpreting WP:PROF. In this case, an h index of 14, over 500 Ghits on Google scholar, many citations, and a full professor ranks as notable. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Meets requirements for notable academic Vartanza (talk) 08:18, 22 June 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.