Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Weitz


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Richard Weitz

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No independent coverage in secondary sources of note. There is some RS coverage of a "Richard Weitz" but that's a Hollywood person. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * comment while I could not find any reviews on JSTOR, there are high citation rates on GS including a paper that has 328 citations and a single author article with >100 citations. For the humanities that seems a lot to me and his books seem to be cited 50-100 times even though I did not find reviews, so clearly there is a documented influence on the field, but maybe this is a high citation field within the humanities. Overall, I am not sure if it amounts to what would be needed in WP:NPROF#1 but when I doubt I would lean to keep. Also in the article he is mentioned as a "Director" at the Hudson_Institute but that title does not seem to mean much, in the article of the institute he is listed as "fellow" which is also what the institutes website seems to indicate.--hroest 16:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Looks WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF -- the highly cited paper is also highly coauthored, and a single paper with 100 citations is pretty thin.  WP:NAUTHOR is plausible, and I will revisit if anyone else finds reviews (but I didn't).  No sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - is a senior scholar at the Hudson Institute enough to pass PROF? Bearian (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't think we should in any case think of any think tank title as meeting WP:NPROF C5. I would take the senior scholar role as being roughly equivalent to a professor role at a major university. But since no title is required to meet WP:NPROF C1, it doesn't matter that much.  Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. hroest points out that the author is highly cited for the humanities and I agree. Russ points out that "senior scholar" is (in this case) roughly equivalent to professor at a major university, and I agree with that. I do think Director at a think thank is enough for C5, though hroest seems to suggest that this person is not a director(?). Bottom line is "when in doubt, keep" (which hroest also said). Dr. Universe (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree that being a scholar within a think tank is equivalent to being a professor in a university. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, although I was the one that suggested the equivalence, I definitely agree that no position in a think tank meets WP:NPROF C5 (as I said in my prior comment). Indeed, C5 specifically requires being tenured at the full professor level.  (4meter's point about biases and agendas is also especially well-taken here.)  As the NPROF guideline specifically says that a subject's "primary job does not need to be academic" so long as "they are known for their academic achievements", I think it's otherwise mostly a moot point, except that we might be more cautious about citation numbers for works arising from think tanks (due to potential for walled gardens).  To be clear, I see absolutely no sign of an NPROF pass for this subject. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR and most importantly WP: SIGCOV. All of the in depth sources are too closely connected to the subject, and therefore building an article based in quality RS is not really possible. With no independent reviews on his publications, no independent biographical sources, etc. it’s a clear delete for me. Further, think tanks often produce publications with clear biases and political agendas, and lack the integrity and oversight that happens in academic research, so I fundamentally have a problem with applying NPROF to anyone employed by a think tank without significant independent coverage.4meter4 (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per 4meter4. Sasquatch t&#0124;c 02:01, 13 July 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.