Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Spiro


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

David Spiro

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:PROF. Every professor has published papers, and this resume-style biography does not stand out in the crowd as the type of exceptional professor that our academic notability guidelines looks for. Gigs (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I get GS cites to be 191, 122, 30, 28, 18, 11, 7, giving h index = 7. Somewhat low for usual WP:Prof #1. Citation patterns in this area are unknown to me. He might pass on WP:Author. Input from scholars in the field and info on library holdings would be useful. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Info on library holdings: Entry for 'Spiro, David E.' at WorldCat Identities says 277 of the libraries WorldCat covers hold his book The hidden hand of American hegemony : petrodollar recycling and international markets. Other books have much lower holdings and not sure if their author is the same David E. Spiro as not listed in the article under discussion or on his personal website. Qwfp (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Given Xxanthippe's data in GS citations I would say that WP:Prof#1 is not satisfied. The AfD discussion of Peter M. Haas may be useful to gauge the citation pattern in this area. CronopioFlotante (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Possibly meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). The citations in GS and books, including at least one by a prestigious university publisher (Cornell UP), add up to a certain level of notability. A somewhat unusual career path though.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't see the impact. The book gets 30 cites in a search on GS, showing that having a reputable publisher doesn't guarantee the book will be used.  I don't see anything much in a news search either: search on David E. Spiro gets five hits, other permutations adding search terms e.g. identity theft or business produce low hits.  If someone comes up with sources that can be used to write the article and substantiate what is there, I'll be happy to change my views.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep on WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC).
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. His book belongs to the Cornell Studies in Political Economy series; it appears to be an academic monograph. As such it will likely appear in academic collections as a matter of course, and I don't think the number of library copies will be particularly meaningful; I think we should try to evaluate this in terms of WP:PROF rather than invoking WP:Author on purely numeric evidence. But my usual trick for digging up academic reviews of books (enter the title at http://www.crossref.org/guestquery/) came up dry, and I don't see any other evidence that he passes WP:PROF #1 nor any other of the WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:PROF. Notwithstanding deletion I went in and replaced first-name-only references with last-name-only references. Simonm223 (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per above. Jim Carmel (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2009 (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.