Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayelet Gneezy


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Ayelet Gneezy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No real demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Promotional article, created by a Noamgneezy who has only edited this and Uri Gneezy. Edwardx (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The unsourced content suggests that the author may pass WP:NACADEMIC #1. Supposedly, her famous paper is award-winning, and cited. Are there academic AFD discussants who can shed some light on this for me.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per below.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep her work has been featured in The Economist ("a team of researchers led by Ayelet Gneezy...") and the Harvard Business Review, . These are articles about three different pieces of work, suggesting that she is notable in her own right and not simply because of one particular study that she was involved in. For me it's a clear keep on both WP:PROF and WP:PROF grounds.Polyharrisson (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added links to these articles and one other to her page, with a brief description of the work.Polyharrisson (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - while brief mentions exist in a scant few sources, none provide biographical relevance or state a claim toward notability. Judging by the page creator, this is a vanity page. -- Netoholic @ 01:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete— Lack of in-depth coverage from multiple RS.Tamsier (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * a quick search on Google News returns pages of results on a range of different topics, including in Time and The New Yorker . I'm not sure what you mean by in-depth coverage. A feature article that is specifically about her? If that is the standard for inclusion, very few of the academics on Wikipedia would make the cut. Polyharrisson (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Passing mentions about her or her work are not sufficient for a stand alone article. One of the sources is slightly better although it's reliability debatable. But even if that passes RS, the other source is merely a passing mention which is not enough to establish notability.Tamsier (talk) 09:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Gneezy is quoted in a Bloomberg article about robotic Barbies as 'an associate professor ... who has studied how people react to promises honored and broken.' Polyharrisson (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also in a Boston Globe article about Panera as someone 'whose research has touched on consumer psychology as well as pay-what-you-can and pay-what-you-want business models.' Polyharrisson (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Then there is an NBC bay area story about a girl selling lemonade, she's quoted as 'an expert in “pay what you want” studies'. Polyharrisson (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And in USA Today commenting on Tips for Jesus. Polyharrisson (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is a 2018 article from the Guardian where she is quoted liberally. Polyharrisson (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems to me like a clear case for WP:PROF : 'Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark'. She has a significant number of quotations in national media (and regional media outside San Diego) as a result of her expertise in PWYW. This in addition to full-length press articles (e.g. the Economist article I quoted earlier and added to her page) describing her research. Polyharrisson (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment perhaps we should take the page of a marketing professor with a slightly larger grain of salt than we do most other pages... Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per PROF#1 based on google scholar Gneezy has a h-index of 14 (with 8 papers cited more than 100 times each). She's also quoted/covered a bit in news media (e.g. gNews has 64 news items - which is generally much more than the usual academic) - but I did not evaluate these in depth. I'll also note that merge to Uri Gneezy (her husband - - also an academic (clearly passing NPROF by holding an endowed chair) is possible, though I think a standalone is better in this case. Icewhiz (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * keep Her work is widely cited. And becasue the topics are appealing, she has been covered in the press for years.  Point is, she's not just a talking head reporters ring up for a comment, the articles are about research she had done.  Such coverage, even when brief,  can be WP:SIGCOV in a way that just being asked for a comment is not. For example:   Financial Times 2013 "Ayelet Gneezy, Uri Gneezy, Leif D Nelson and Amber Brown, also marketing academics, experimented with different pricing schemes for people invited to buy photographs of themselves on a rollercoaster.   Some people were told that half the money they paid would go to a charity for sick children. Some were invited to pay whatever they wished. But it was those two options in combination that worked wonders: if patrons were invited to pay what they pleased, and told that half their payment would go to charity, revenues and profits surged.   But this scheme seems to rely on a cognitive illusion. It could equally be described thus: “we’ll grab half of your charitable donation and give you this photo in exchange; the more you give to the charity, the more we’ll take.” Not so appealing.  And there is a twist. Gneezy et al found that, while profits jumped, fewer people actually bought photos if they were told half the money was going to charity. Were the people who would have paid a little and taken the photograph afraid of looking cheap once the charity was mentioned? Perhaps they found it easier to walk away."   I won't try everyone's patience with more, similar examples.   But her studies get this kind of coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2019 (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.