Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Falkenstein


 * 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 no consensus. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Eric Falkenstein

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Businessman who has only received coverage in a couple of unreliable cryptocurrency publications, fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Would advise not to delete. His contributions have been mostly scientific. Therefore additional sources have been added from JSTOR, SSRN, Google scholar, Wall Street Journal to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InvestorQuant (talk • contribs) 07:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - The Journal of Finance and The Journal of Fixed Income don't strike me as "a couple of unreliable cryptocurrency publications". Clarification?  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 09:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Has quite a solid citation record, particularly his PhD work, prior to transitioning to industry. I don't think this is a NPROF pass, though it may be possible to argue NAUTHOR if someone finds reviews for The Missing Risk Premium: Why Low Volatility Investing Works and Finding Alpha: The Search for Alpha When Risk and Return Break Down.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 09:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC) See this notice.VR talk 13:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  10:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. His most cited paper, Preferences for stock characteristics as revealed by mutual fund portfolio holdings. in  The journal of finance.
 * Weak keep. Passes criteria 1 and 7 of WP:NACADEMIC. It looks like he co-developed a notable test used in credit risk modeling/management, the Falkenstein and Boral Test. See pages 62-69. Lots of hits when you search those two names together in academic search engines. 4meter4 (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One last relist. Does he hit NPROF or no?
 * Delete. Being published in two or three journals isn't an indicator of notability. An academic with an h-index of 14 doesn't strike me as meeting WP:NACADEMIC. I would be more persuaded of 4meter4's argument re the Falkenstein and Boral Test if their paper on it had more than 215 citations. Writing a couple of books doesn't mean someone meets WP:NAUTHOR unless there's clear indication that those books are notable. As someone that has self-published a book and then paid for it to be reviewed (Kirkus says of itself "As an unpublished or self-published author, it can be a relentless struggle to attract a significant amount of attention to your book or manuscript. By purchasing a Kirkus indie review, authors can have the opportunity to build some name recognition and get noticed by agents, publishers and other industry influencers.") I see this article as part of Falkenstein's self-promotion. I am happy to be persuaded to keep if more references can be added that show that his work has been written about in depth by reliable, independent publications. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not know that Kirkus had gone to a pay-to-play model. That's disturbing, significantly lowers my opinion of them, and definitely means that review should not count towards notability for Falkenstein. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Does that only apply to "Kirkus Indie"? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe so. The review of Falkenstein's self-published book says at the bottom "Review Program: KIRKUS INDIE" so I am confident that it is a paid review and therefore does not count towards notability. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the question was, should we be suspicious of non-indie Kirkus reviews now too? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The citation profile is not indicative of a distinguished research career. The book reviews fail to be independent, in-depth in their content, and/or reliably published. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per Curb Safe Charmer. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. He has only two noteworthy scholarly publications, among other lesser ones, but I think they are significant enough to make a case for WP:PROF: (1) "Preferences for stock characteristics as revealed by mutual fund portfolio holdings", a solo paper with 4-digit citation counts in Google Scholar, and (2) RiskCalc, a system for credit risk assessment apparently developed by Falkenstein, Boral, and Carty; Google Scholar has nearly 2000 hits for "RiskCalc" and their joint work describing it has over 200 citations. (This appears to be the same as the "Falkenstein and Boral Test" cited by 4meter4.) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per Curb Safe Charmer. Falkenstein “was among the top influencer bloggers according to the Wall Street Journal”, that is, in a paywalled article from 2010. The h-index number is meaningless unless we know what is typical in that field. It would just about be enough to get tenure as a physicist; but Falkenstein is not a physicist! Nwhyte (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. His most cited paper, Preferences for stock characteristics as revealed by mutual fund portfolio holdings in The journal of finance.  has been cited an extraordinary 1376 times. One work of that sort is enouht to show someone influential ,regadless of subject, even though he is not primarily an academic.  DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at related articles on Google Scholar via the link at the bottom of Falkenstein's listing is interesting on two fronts: firstly it shows that 1376 isn't an exceptional amount of citations in this field of academia, and secondly we can click through to other authors and answer 's comment above "the h-index number is meaningless unless we know what is typical in that field". Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2021 (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.