Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen Weyl


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Glen Weyl

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability per WM: Notability (academics) 3andfourquarters (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I proposed for deletion because the subject is not a notable academic per Wikipedia guidelines. The article does not justify notability per those guidelines, and reads like self promotion. 3andfourquarters (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC) — 3andfourquarters (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Weak Keep That bio is pretty impressive, I'd go so far as to say notable. Does "Junior Fellow at the Harvard Society of Fellows" qualify under WP:PROF C3? Even if not under C3, I think he is notable enough to keep an article, which by the way is very well cited. Also, to argue WP:CRYSTAL, which is not valid, but I'm going to anyway, I would be surprised if he didn't meet notability criteria in the near future if you think he doesn't now. Monty  845  21:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Harvard Society of Fellows is prestigious, but I don't think it rises to the level of C3, especially since it is an early career award (prior to first tenure track position) and not based on prior contribution, but rather academic promise. If you look at the Wikipedia page for Junior Fellows at the Harvard Society of Fellows, the ones listed with Wikipedia entries are all senior academic economists and full professors with much, much longer CVs and contributions to the profession who were fellows long ago. In many cases their membership in the Harvard Society of Fellows as a junior fellow is not even mentioned on their wikipedia pages, indicating the stature of the award.[] 3andfourquarters (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article looks like a self promotion. Eduemoni↑talk↓  21:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - It does reek of self-promotion, but he's a notable person (almost every person I've met working in economics knows his name). I suggest we remove the Early Life section and the other quotes, and keep the rest. Prochron (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Self promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.205.161 (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I do not know if he's notable enough for wikipedia, he's definitely well known in the field. Mostly because he graduated with a Ph.D+ B.A in Princeton in 5 years and has gotten a lot of attention from new york times articles. Generally he's viewed as a rising star not someone who has made outstanding contributions yet. 98.71.123.141 (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What attention has he gotten from the New York Times other than his wedding announcement? I can't find anything, and his Wiki article only cites Princeton and Harvard news releases (and his CV).
 * As for everyone in the field knowing who he is, I don't believe he is more notable among economists than any of the handful of other stars on the economics job market this year, none of whom have wikipedia entries.
 * Again, going by the Wiki notability criteria, I don't see how he qualifies for an entry. 3andfourquarters (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article looks a bit cheesy as of now, but Weyl is notable. Speaking as an economist who's researching on two-sided markets as well, I have to say his recent AER paper is remarkable. We could delete his article now, only to re-add him when the next Economist survey on top young economists appears, because Weyl will be part of it. --bender235 (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He is promising at best. He is not even one of the prestigous restud tourists chosen among the job market candidates this year, ie, he is not even in top 7 in his year. Note that none of these restud tourists have their own wiki entries. Weyl does not meet the notability criteria. Serendipities (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Self promotion. He is sorta-well-known among grad students and some academic economists but mostly for his relentless self-promotion. His CV and publications are not any more notable than many other economists on the junior job market in this or any other year. -Sire Bruce (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC) — Sire Bruce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Wow, the second single-purpose account eager to remove this article. How come? --bender235 (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This page got posted on a widely read economist message board (EconJobRumors). I would guess that is the source of the new people. At least it was for me. I ended up contributing because I am acquainted with Glen. I do not have any explicit evidence of self-promotion in this case but thought it was worth contributing the information that he is notorious for egregious self-promotion within the profession. -Sire Bruce (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC).


 * Delete Self-promotion. Weyl just got a tenure-track position. Many famous economists who are tenured don't even have wikipedia pages. Serendipities (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC) — Serendipities (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Third single-purpose account. What is going on here? --bender235 (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's just say that people don't want to expose themselves because of possible reprisals. Serendipities (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. He may well be on-track to pass WP:PROF eventually but he doesn't seem to be there yet. The citation counts in Google scholar aren't enough to convince me of a pass of criterion #C1, the only hits in Google news that are about him rather than by him are a marriage announcement and a brief quote in a student newspaper story about a political convention, and there is similarly little in Google books. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Eppstein. GS cites are 28, 24, 20.. with h index = 5; not enough for WP:Prof. The Harvard Society of Fellows is an illustrious institution, but a Junior Fellow is early career. On the track to WP notability but not there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete a postdoctoral fellow( "he will be an assistant professor at Chicago Next year " -- his web site.) with a few good papers. not yet notable, and I hope the attempt to introduce this now will not count against him when he does become notable, as seems likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * Delete: a new academic who does as yet not appear to me to have a sufficient amount of work to pass our WP:Prof. WoS calculates a h-index of 1 with 6 articles with 3,1,1,0,0,0 cites. Of these 6 citations 2 are self citations. The article's tone would not seem to rule out this being a joke page created to cause embarrassment. (Msrasnw (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC))
 * There is an abusive comment here that claims a hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC).


 * Delete, getting some attention while an undergraduate back in 2007 means that Weyl was an undergraduate in 2007. To put this another way, being the tallest 5-year-old child in California in 2011 or the highest scoring baseball player in Little League in 2005 is evidence of the weakness of the competition. Abductive  (reasoning) 14:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. It is clear that this person is a junior academic. It is also clear that none of his positions or accomplishments (undergrad awards, accelerated education, letter to Friedman, etc.) render him notable per se. He does have research accomplishments, but they are extremely typical of a junior academic: 6 papers with a grand total of 5 citations and h-index=1 (WoS). Probably notable in the future, but art will have to wait until then. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC).
 * 5 citations? His 2010 American Economic Review paper alone has two dozens citations as of now. --bender235 (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: My view is that I do not think there is anyone doubting that his achievments to date are impressive. But the problem is he is an early career academic and has not, in many people's views, yet achieved WP:Prof notability. It may be one would wish to go down the general notability route - as a noted high flier - but I don't think there is sufficient evidence for this presented in the article or evident elsewhere. The small number of citations reported on WoS is due to its not including Working Paper series and the like which I think are incorporated in Google Scholar. It might be a good idea to take a copy of the article to work on and when he is more firmly established and has some more publications that have been cited widely then a new version of the article could be produced. I think also there may be some resitance due to the over promotional tone of the article. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC))
 * Comment. As Msrasnw observed, most of those citations are from unpublished white-papers. Convention in the academic world holds that "published" means publication through an established, peer-reviewed outlet, usually a journal (there are tens of thousands of them). GS slurps some of these in, but also many more citations from sources that are not "published" by the above definition and so are not considered to carry the weight or authority of a citation from a published source. Often GS and WoS give very close results, but sometimes they're quite different (as here). Though I'm not suggesting so in this case, GS citations can also easily be rigged (see here), an issue that came up in another recent Afd. It is largely for these reasons that WP:PROF identifies WoS and Scopus as the only "approved" citation databases (in the sense that they can basically be used without reservation), while attaching extremely cautionary language to others (including GS). Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC).
 * Google scholar question: Does anyone know how things at google scholar are working in this case? Looing at the google scholar entry for Weyl's AER article:
 * This is listed Second in the list) as A price theory of multi-sided platforms The American Economic Review, 2010 - ingentaconnect.com
 * If one clicks on the cited by the first entry is Search engines: Left side quality versus right side profits Toulouse School of Economics Working Paper, 2008 - papers.ssrn.com
 * The Weyl reference in here is ''Weyl, E. Glen (2008). \The Price Theory of Two-Sided Markets". Working Paper. Available
 * at http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/�weyl/pt2sms 7 08.pdf''
 * This seems to me to be a different paper and is listed separately as the third in google scholar list for Weyl and is cited by the AER paper itself.
 * The second cited by for the AER entry is listed as http://www.ifo.de/portal/page/portal/DocBase_Content/WP/WP-CESifo_Working_Papers/wp-cesifo-2010/wp-cesifo-2010-03/cesifo1_wp3004.pdf . But Weyl doesn't seem to be in this article.
 * Google Scholar - seems to be behaving oddly or is something funny going on. Is it doing double counting? Or, which is quite possible, am I making some silly mistake? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 21:07, 1 April 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.