Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Grantham


 * 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. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

George W. Grantham

 * – ( View AfD View log )

As depicted, subject is scarcely more than a routine if admired professor at a large North American university, of which there are thousands. Being friends with Nobel laureate Paul Krugman does not make him Paul Krugman, or give him Krugman's C.V. Nothing presented distinguishes Grantham as being more than a "widely published" professor. — Preceding nomination made by Wikiuser100 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Seemingly a venerable professor of economics. I'll do a little digging this morning, I usually don't spend much time on academics but this would seem to be a pretty obvious keeper, based on career information in the article. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep comment- Emeritus Professor specializing in the History of Economic Thought with 40 Publications. Sufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is HIS CV in case anyone is wanting to improve the article. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Can't see any basis on which he fits the requirements of WP:PROF. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per the guidelines about academics' notability, just being published a few times doesn't make him notable. Also, I seem to recall that referencing a work with a person's own CV is frowned upon around here  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  14:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Quoting from Notability (academics), "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1."  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  14:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Seems to me to meet WP:Prof. Professor Emeritus of Economics (Economic Evolution and Revolution in Historical Time By Paul Webb Rhode, Joshua L. Rosenbloom, David F. Weiman) at McGill. Well published and cited economic historian/cliometrician (he is not noted as a historian of economic thought!) and winner of the Cliometric Society's annual prize - the Clio Can (2000). (Msrasnw (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC))
 * Comment. Professor emeritus is not a title of any particular distinction suitable for passing WP:PROF. It just means "retired professor". So I think the comments of Carrite and Msrasnw should be interpreted based on what they say about his achievements, citations, and prizes, not for that title. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply on the honorific emeritus: My understanding is that at McGill the honorific, "Emeritus", was conferred by McGill's Board of Governors on retired full Professors.. who had made outstanding contributions to the University and/or scholarly communities through excellence in research, teaching, creative or scholarly activity, academic leadership or any combination thereof. I think this changed, last year or the year before, to being conferred by the Provost for all retired full Professors who held their rank for at least 5 years and had maintained the standards for which they were appointed to that rank. So whether he was appointed under the new or old system - it is a title of some note. (Obviously more if under the older regime) McGill's requirements for full professorship are of course research excellence. (Msrasnw (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC))
 * Some of the material in bold face is routine rhetoric. "emeritus" adds nothing of significance to Professor, except that he's retired.  DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If I may add one additional observation on whether "emeritus" has any special bearing on notability here...while it is an affirmation of contributions, research, etc. by the governing board of an institution, it is very much a routine action. That's not to say "emeritus" is conferred on every retiring professor. It is not, and these are sometimes the exceptional cases. Perhaps the best recent example that was covered in WP:RS is from the University of Illinois, which last year went out of its way to deny Bill Ayers emeritus status – it is the exceptions that are notable. So, when taken in context, "emeritus" status does not go significantly toward WP notability. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC).


 * Delete A full professor at one of the highest quality research universities in Canada would generally be notable--if he is a full professor--the McGill bio cited in the article says Associate Professor. . It is perfectly correct that simply writing a large number of publications is not notability, and this is a good example of the 40 publications listed in, about 30 of the mare book reviews, which do not make anyone notable (I have several times that figure myself--they are very easy); what does count is writing a large number of peer reviewed publications in good journals In this case, only nine of them at most are peer-reviewed journal articles, and the citation record of them is very weak also.  MS Academic search includes book review--GScholar does not, but includes working papers:I see at most 5 peer-reviewed papers. Most notable historians write books--have has never done so.   DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not sure Google scholar is the right way to measure impact in this field, but I only get an h-index of 6 using GS, not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF. I'd be willing to change my mind on this with sufficient specific evidence of impact, but just asserting that he's "well published and cited" isn't good enough. As for the other WP:PROF criteria, the only other one that seems plausible is the Clio Can, but that seems to be a service award for "Exceptional Support to the Field of Cliometrics" so I'm not convinced it qualifies as a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" under criterion #C2. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. Adding to the points made above, most widely held book in libraries, Technical and organizational change in French agriculture between 1840 and 1880, currently in less than 5 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The subject’s record is indeed a bit stronger than the initial numbers suggested, but not by much. When the middle initial is used, the numbers are much lower. When it is not used, a lot of false positives come up, which need to be removed one by one. The actual numbers seem closer to those quoted by Msrasnw, e.g., h-index of about 10 and approximately 200 library holdings for most widely held book Labour Market Evolution. I am still not convinced they add up to enough for WP-notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Worries about some of the metrics being quoted: Looking at one of his books Labour Market Evolution: The Economic History of Market Integration, Wage Flexibility and the Employment Relation this seems to be held by more than 200 libraries world wide (Worldcat) and has been subject to multiple independent reviews (this could then allow a pass of WP:auth if we wanted to):
 * Garside, W. R. (1996). Labour Market Evolution: The Economic History of Market Integration, Wage Flexibility and the Employment Relation. Business History, 38, 1, 172.
 * Engerman, S. L. (1995). Labour Market Evolution: The Economic History of Market Integration, Wage Flexibility and the Employment Relation. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 48, 4, 873.
 * Shanahan, M. (1995). Labour Market Evolution: The Economic History of Market Integration, Wage Flexibility and the Employment Relation. The Economic History Review, 48, 3.)
 * Another book Agrarian organization in the century of industrialization : Europe, Russia, and North America is listed by Worldcat as being held by only 136 US libraries.
 * The work being quoted as his most widely held book (Technical and organizational change) seems to me to be his Thesis which one would not expect to be very widely held!
 * The H index I get from Google Scholar seems to be at least 10. But I have only had a quick look with my results here: Prof Grantham's H index from Google Scholar.
 * Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC))


 * Keep as meeting notability guidelines for WP:AUTHOR. Carrite (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2011 (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.