Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herbert Gintis

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 Keep. Nomination withdrawn, no other outstanding "delete" !votes. Randykitty (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Gintis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not convinced that the subject passes WP:PROF, or even WP:GNG. The only claim I can see that might pass the professor test is the editorial role on Journal of Economic Behaviour..., but even then he's listed as "an" editor rather than the head of the editorial staff. I'm open to withdrawing this if notability can be demonstrated, but at present, it reads like a resume, not the biography of a notable academic. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has an h-index of 66 [1], which seems like it is high enough to pass WP:PROF criterion 1 easily. I'm not 100% sure, though. Jinkinson talk to me 14:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Changing Face of Economics: Conversations with Cutting Edge Economists (my underlining) published by University of Michigan Press (already a reference in the article) has a 30 page interview with him, and the title of the book is rather self explanatory. There's an entire book devoted to his and Samuel Bowles's work, Bowles and Gintis Revisited: Correspondence and Contradiction in Educational Theory, published by Routledge. Note the number of reviews of his work in peer-reviewed journals on Jstor [2]. See also the lengthy review of Gintis's 2009 book, The Bounds of Reason: Game Theory and the Unification of the Behavioral Sciences, in American Scientist [3]. The Bowles and Gintis book, Schooling in capitalist America: educational reform and the contradictions of economic life, has had 44 editions in 5 languages between 1976 and 2011 and over 8700 citations and Gingtis himself has an H-index of 66 on Google Scholar wnich is quite high. [4]. See also the total library holdings of his works at WorldCat [5] and reviews in the New York Times of two of his books: [6], [7] I'll also note in passing that Herbert Gintis has over 30 incoming links on Wikipedia (excluding list articles) [8]. The list of publications currently in the article needs to be pruned to include only the most influential and widely reviewed works and referenced to reviews. But I would say he is is definitely notable as an academic. Voceditenore (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Massive citation counts on Google scholar [9] (including six publications with four-digit citation counts; many academics would be happy with that many three-digit citation counts) show a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1, in addition to the very convincing evidence for both notability and nontrivial coverage given above by Voceditenore. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject obviously meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:PROF. The fact that enough references to reliable sources are not present in the article has not nullify its notability, hence WP:BEFORE its very important. Wikicology (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Per the arguments above, I withdraw the nomination. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.