Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Economics

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Economics. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Economics|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Economics. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Economics/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Economics

Gridlock (economics)

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

I had proposed deletion via PROD with the following rationale: While the term of "Gridlock" is widely used, it's not typically used in the way described here. The current article seems to be focused on the concept of first mover disadvantage, which is a niche usage. Even the term "First mover disadvantage" is more commonly used to refer to what this article describes. I couldn't find many search results referring to gridlock in this context. Also, the article itself isn't so well written in general and not particularly well sourced.

Deletion via PROD was contested with the following rationale: consider merge or redirect to "Law of the handicap of a head start" as preferred WP:ATD

However, I still feel like this page should be deleted rather than merged/redirected , so I'm starting a deletion discussion. The reasons why I disagree with the proposed merge are: - "Law of the handicap of a head start" is not the same concept as gridlock, even though they share similarities - The current article is poorly written and undersourced, so there isn't much material to salvage anyway 7804j (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Economics. 7804j (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International charter for walking

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

does not meet notability guidelines per WP:GNG not enough reliable independent coverage of the subject SapphicVibes (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons provided by SapphicVibes.

RedactedHumanoid (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Economics, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I love walking and even race walking, I don't see significant coverage. If you can rescue this, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geroski curve

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

Notability not established with independent sources. Cite 1 in version is the original article by Geroski himself (also the external link), 2 pre-dates Geroski's article and does not mention it, 3 and 4 are both irrelevant ref-bomb links. Reywas92^Talk 03:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I respectfully disagree with the nomination for deletion and believe the article on the Geroski curve can meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines (WP:GNG) with my added improvements. The Geroski curve, named after economist Paul Geroski, describes a model of industry evolution through stages of innovation, dominant design, and consolidation, which is a significant concept in economics and innovation studies. While the current article relies heavily on a primary source (Geroski, 2000), I have identified additional reliable, independent secondary sources that provide significant coverage of Geroski’s model or its underlying concepts:

- Markides, C., & Geroski, P. A. (2005). Fast Second: How Smart Companies Bypass Radical Innovation to Enter and Dominate New Markets. This book discusses the role of dominant design in industry evolution, building on Geroski’s framework, and is widely cited in innovation literature. [Source available via Google Books or academic libraries.]
- Srinivasan, R., Lilien, G. L., & Rangaswamy, A. (2006). "The Emergence of Dominant Designs" Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 1–17. This peer-reviewed article examines the dominant design and cites Geroski’s work on industry evolution, providing an independent analysis of his model. [DOI:10.1509/jmkg.70.1.001.q]
- Suarez, F. F., Grodal, S., & Gotsopoulos, A. (2015). "Perfect timing? Dominant category, dominant design, and the window of opportunity for firm entry" Strategic Management Journal, 36(3), 437–448. This article references Geroski’s contributions to understanding dominant design and industry life cycles. [DOI: 10.1002/smj.2225]

These sources demonstrate that Geroski’s model, or the concepts closely associated with it (e.g., S-curve diffusion, dominant design), has received significant coverage in reliable, independent outlets. The term "Geroski curve" may be a specific framing of his broader work on technology diffusion and industry evolution, as described in The Evolution of New Markets (Geroski, 2003), which has been reviewed and cited in academic literature.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geroski wrote the first one here, it's not independent... I can only access the abstract for the second, but Geroski is not cited in the references. For the third, Geroski is cited a few times, but "Geroski curve" is not mentioned, nor literally anywhere else. Dominant design or Paul Geroski seems to be the appropriate place for some coverage of this type of research, not a standalone article with a name you apparently made up out of thin air. Reywas92^Talk 23:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I largely agree with Reywas92 in this case. The specific term "Geroski Curve" seems to be synthesized and should not have its own article per WP:SYNTH. The basic concept of the model could easily be discussed on Geroski's page instead. It's also just a sigmoidal curve and these sorts of patterns are found everywhere. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: The term itself has practically no coverage in popular or scientific media. Hence it should be deleted, but since the foundational publication on innovation diffusion has a significant amount of citations and follow-up research, I would merge the article to somewhere else. Target destinations are Paul Geroski or Diffusion of innovations. Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mathias Mamou-Mani

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

No evidence of notability for this French hedge fund manager. JTtheOG (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Economics, and France. JTtheOG (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Hedge fund managers are not inherently notable. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets notability per WP:THREE and WP:BLP. Multiple independent, reliable sources (HedgeNordic, Delano.lu, FT.com, Paperjam.lu, Yahoo Finance) cover his work in hedge fund replication and DBi’s investment strategies. His contributions are clearly significant and verifiable. WikiSDanny (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --John B123 (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reviewed this during New Page Review and didn't have time for a WP:BEFORE so I'm glad JTtheOG did. I agree that there's no evidence of notability. The sources offered by WikiSDanny are either stock tickers, WP:INTERVIEWS and other non-WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generalized game theory

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

This concept doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines, since most of the articles that talk about this concept are from the authors themselves. The current sentence in the lead "The theory was developed by Tom R. Burns, Anna Gomolinska, and Ewa Roszkowska but has not had great influence beyond these immediate associates" is especially problematic for a Wikipedi article.

However, the article has a lot of content and has been around since 2008, so it could benefit from a deeper look from the community to validate this 7804j (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Mathematics. 7804j (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Will proceed to merge as proposed by another contributor 7804j (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I wrote this page after AfDs for two other pages on work related to Burns. While the concept is primarily used in the work of Burns and his research group, it is used in multiple peer reviewed articles and represents a significant part of the research agenda of that group. The theory remains in use within that group (and even if it didn't, I'd still !vote wk). Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Since the concept seems to be almost exclusively tied to the originating author, the article contents should be merged to Tom R. Burns, who does have a wikipedia page. The concept on its own does not merit the page existence, as per nomination. Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good idea, so I'll withdraw my nomination and proceed with the merge 7804j (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chrematistics

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

An extremely obscure word appearing occasionally in Aristotle's work

Aristotle contrasts chresmatistics, which is the art of money-making, with economics, which is the art of household management in the Politics and in the Nicomachean Ethics. (Aristotle used the word 'techne' where I use the word 'art'.)

The term and category of chresmatistics is totally inessential to understanding Aristotle's views concerning which ways of acquiring wealth are legitimate and which illegitimate, or any other philosopher's views. And though the article may point out some real parallels between the criticism Marx and others made of capitalism, I don't think this very obscure Greek word has any real significance, and that any valuable content on this page should be merged to more frequently read general articles concerning philosophical critiques of capitalism, ancient ideas about economics, or into the articles of specific philosophers who developed Aristotle's ideas. Even then, I think that that material would be appropriate only if the later philosopher made this distinction between money-making and house-management a central element of their position. ForeverBetter (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While I cannot comment on the relevance of the term within the philosophical discourse, there are several academic papers, usually in business ethics as well as some coverage in media towards a lay audience. These either have the term in their title, or feature it within the first few paragraphs prominently.

Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hartley

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think a great deal has changed since the previous AFD which I closed as G5, but was clearly going to end in delete otherwise. I'm unable to find any sources that come close to meeting WP:BIO and with an h-index of 10 it's unlikely that WP:PROF is met. SmartSE (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. SmartSE (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep Appears to be notable enough with his media presence and recognition. Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid rationale. Where are the sources providing substantial, independent coverage? SmartSE (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. Far WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. No GNG as few sources are independent of the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this current PhD student. I guess there could be a case for WP:NCREATIVE with the podcast, but I do not see the reviews or other signs of impact (anyway, that would tend to make a case for a redirect to an article on the podcast). No other notability is apparent; in particular, I am not impressed by inclusion in listicles. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding on my delete rationale. The subject has published several papers, some of them in good journals, as in the GS profile. All academics publish papers, and this in itself is WP:MILL: we look for impact for WP:NPROF notability. At first glance, the first paper is highly cited, but the citation count combines a paper of the subject (which has no citations) with a paper of some of his coauthors. The second item also combines several papers, although less abusively. In a high citation field, I don't think that this demonstrates the needed impact: it would be surprising for a PhD student to have the necessary notability. Authoring pieces in the popular press is similar; we do not consider reporters to be automatically notable. For WP:NPROF C7, I'm seeing a small number of quotations in a quotable field, and I think this also falls short. GNG notability appears to hinge on whether inclusion in a listicle contributes enough. Past discussion has been fairly skeptical of this. My view is that it contributes only slightly. I also wish to comment that I am concerned about a pattern where relatively new accounts that have not previously shown an interest in AfD leave a "keep" !vote here approximately halfway through a string of 10-20 AfD discussion !votes. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further expanding on the GNG case. Later keep !votes made a better case for GNG. I am still not convinced -- I do not see independent coverage in reliable sources. The wharton piece is highly non-independent. The USA today opinion piece is authored, so not independent. I discount the Forbes listicle coverage, although I note that past discussion at AfD of similar listicles has gone in both directions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia:Notability (people) says :"Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."

Hartley is recognised as "notably influential" within the realm of ideologies, extending beyond his biography as a subject of secondary sources. His contributions to various news outlets, along with his role in conducting interviews with contemporaries and prominent figures AND being interviewed by them for his research, underscore the significance of his work in the field

1. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-:inflation-canadian-government-borrowing-billions/

2.https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jon-hartley-trudeau-should-listen-to-elon-musk-on-productivity

3.https://conversableeconomist.com/2024/03/13/interview-with-stephen-levitt-my-career-and-why-im-retiring-from-academia/

4.https://capitalismandfreedom.substack.com/p/episode-28-steven-d-levitt-freakonomics

5.https://americancompass.org/critics-corner-with-jon-hartley/

6.https://johnbatchelor.substack.com/p/the-future-of-canada-with-jon-hartley

I created this page because I believed his information was fragmented across various sources on the internet, and it would be worthwhile to compile it all in one place on Wikipedia.

Another criterion under WP:NACADEMIC states that a subject must "have had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." This criterion seems to apply to Hartley, given the influence of his research published in journals such as...

1.Journal of Financial Economics https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/660506eb488a1777a90db94a/1711605484880/HartleyJermann_2024_JFE.pdf

2.Publications under Harvard Business School https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=67312

3.Publications under Economic Letters https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/63eabdb744edb5235541b0b1/1676328375934/HartleyEL2021.pdf

4.Publication under Jurnal of Urban economics https://static1.squarespace.com/static/568f03c8841abaff89043b9d/t/63eabcff916adf2105c011b0/1676328191950/GyourkoHartleyKrimmel_JUE_2021.pdf

Fenharrow (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that this meets the 7th criteria of WP:NACADEMIC due to his publications in the Journal of Financial Economics and his appearances/contributions to mainstream media sources and think tanks. He seems to have been frequently interviewed by prominent institutions, the Wharton School as an example. This also seems to be notable since he has been covered in various RSes such as The Globe and Mail, National Post, and more. Lastly, there are lots of professors who have fewer or a similar amount of RSes, content, and notability and remain on Wikipedia and are not being nominated for deletion. Examples include but are not limited to Herman Clarence Nixon, Daniel Nugent, Thomas Sakmar, Avery Craven, James L. Fitzgerald, Lawrence M. Friedman, H. Gregg Lewis, Guy A. Marco, and more. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gjb0zWxOb Sorry but I dont see how writing a couple of articles in newspapers qualifies for NPROF#7, can you specify what exactly his impact was? If such an impact was indeed present, then it should be possible to find WP:RS to cover this impact, without such sources I think NPROF#7 will not apply. While he did write articles in Globe and Mail and NP, he was not covered by these outlets as far as I can see (see WP:JOURNALIST), the coverage would have to be a profile about him to count towards notability. Most of the people you listed had a long and illustrious academic and public career and were notable due to their academic impact as indicated by experts in the field, not really comparable to here (actually making the point here that this is WP:TOOSOON. --hroest 14:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wharton School article, published by a highly reputable academic institution, clearly qualifies as a profile and underscores Hartley's recognition in academia. But even putting WP:NPROF aside, I think it's evident he independently meets WP:GNG. Per WP:SIGCOV, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is the standard, and that is plainly met here. This includes not just op-eds he authored, but also interviews such as in L'Express. This coverage goes well beyond routine mentions and shows that he is regarded as a notable public commentator and scholar. GNG simply requires reputable, independent sources, which he has here. Also, extensive op-eds should not be so quickly dismissed as they are directly relevant to NPROF#7 which requires that, "The person has had substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." I found he has published work ranging from Globe and Mail, National Post, and USA Today. These are not blogs, they are professionally vetted publications that only platform notable experts. This certainly conforms with the requirement of NPROF#7. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete clear case of WP:TOOSOON, likely notable in a few years. Writing/publishing articles does not make a person notable by itself, see WP:NPROF and WP:NJOURNALIST so I dont believe that the listing of articles above contributes to notability. --hroest 20:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article seems to have been deleted previously due to a lacking of sources that were acceptable by our standards at the time of its prior publication on Wikipedia. However, as of 2025 there seems to be more than enough reliable and independent sources covering the subject of the article. In the two plus years since the prior AfD, sources for the subject appear to be better and more relevant and independent. The subject is pretty clearly active and well established in academia. WP:SIGCOV easily passes. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - winning a made up in one day Forbes award for an up and coming but run of the mill academic. WP:NOTFB. I'm willing to change my mind about this if evidence of full tenure or high citation numbers is added. Right now, he's a fellow at a think tank that has long ago become subject to donor pressure. Ping me. Bearian (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Jon Hartley meets the criteria for notability under WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC, and concerns about WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTFB do not seem to be applicable in this case. His research appears to have been published in reliable journals such as the Journal of Financial Economics, Journal of Political Economy: Microeconomics, and Economics Letters. A Google search reveals Hartley to have been featured in sources including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, and National Post. The sources demonstrate significant coverage and in reliable, independent sources, meeting WP:GNG. His recognition by Forbes in their 30 Under 30 list for Law & Policy in 2017 further demonstrates notability. Unclasp4940 (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Publishing papers is what every academic does - it definitely does not confer notability. Similarly, the articles in reliable sources are written by him, not about him and that is a crucial difference - the coverage is not about him. SmartSE (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just publishing stuff contributes nothing to notability. It is having the publications noted (cited) by others that gives notability through WP:Prof#C1. There is nothing like enough of that here. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Meets GNG so the arguments about the SNG (which I did not analyze) are not relevant. IMO exceeds the norm for GNG compliance, including several GNG references. Article really needs expansion using material from those references, but that's an article development issues rather than one for here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
North8000, I respect your opinion and experience on AfDs, and I always aim to be persuadable. Would you perhaps detail how you think the sources meet GNG and SIGCOV? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done several thousand NPP reviews and will tell my overall "take" on it. I look at it holistically, including the multiple relevant guidelines and policies combined and the normal community standards of applying them. Using the reference numbers in the article version as of the date of this post, IMO #2 and #5 meet the norm for GNG interpretation, even if not 100% bulletproof. The Forbes listing (with bio) bolsters that. High ranking places providing his bio are not GNG but also reflective. Same with what's in some of the other sources. As noted I don't think that the academic SNG is needed, (and I've not analyzed that) but at quick glance some strong and detailed arguments have been presented that he also meets the SNG which would be a "belt and suspenders" thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot of experience with the SNG, and I do not think he is very close to meeting WP:NPROF C1 (the main criterion). WP:NPROF C7 is pretty consonant with GNG. Of course, a pass of GNG suffices. As far as that goes, the Wharton piece (#2) fails independence, and I do not place weight on Forbes. I agree that source #1 should be given some weight, although it is an WP:RSOPINION by the subject. I will mull over. Thank you! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The "Forbes 30 Under 30" designation is not made-up per WP:MADEUP. It involves a thorough vetting process by industry experts too, not just journalists. Overall, the subject's work meets WP:PROF's first stated criterion, and his Google Scholar profile shows a strong body of work in economics that has been cited extensively. The page can be improved, but it's worth keeping in my view. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how did you evaluate his academic profile? His GS profile is far from reaching any of the 8 criteria outlined there. Neither his citation count nor his h-index is anywhere close to a pass of the "average professor" test. Yes it is impressive for a junior researcher, but nowhere close to a lasting impact on his discipline. We cannot go on future potential but on available evidence. --hroest 03:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His GS profile is a long long way from meeting WP:Prof#C1. Maybe he will come up to standard in future but not yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like WP:NPROF is a red herring here. At any rate it would be really quite extraordinary for someone to pass WP:NPROF before they've even got their doctorate. What isn't clear to me from this discussion is whether he meets WP:GNG in spite of not meeting WP:NPROF.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Gerrysay (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The "lasting impact on his discipline" standard feels like an arbitrary threshold (e.g. to quantify "lasting" is inherently subjective). This guy seems impactful enough to clear the bar. Doctorstrange617 (talk) Doctorstrange617 (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think he's quite reached the level of PROF, and don't see multiple independent GNG qualifying sources Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hoover_Institution#Members I do not think he has enough notability or source coverage for a stand alone article like this. He seems mostly known to be a Hoover Institute fellow. Considering that the previous AFD result was pretty much SNOW delete, this may be a decent alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Review of the references and presence based on Google search and author's profile, suggests that, in my opinion, there's sufficient independent coverage and notability through media coverages, interviews, and invited opinions as "analyst and economist." It's true that he might be up-and-coming, but that doesn't inhibit inclusion on WP at the moment with current information. WeWake (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: To meet WP:GNG, I don't see any independent, reliable, secondary sources in the article and I couldn't find anything online. The Wharton article is not independent: the subject was a student there. Forbes 30 under 30 (2017) is two sentences. Mercatus, MacDonald-Laurier, Hoover are not independent. Where are the independent, reliable sources with significant coverage?

For WP:PROF#C1 (academic influence through paper reviews and citations), the subject has one highly cited paper "The local residential land use regulatory environment across U.S. housing markets: Evidence from a new Wharton index" but no others. More is needed. Some here have argued for WP:PROF#C7 (popular influence), but one interview in L'Express and a little-known podcast doesn't meet the standard to me. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MouseCursor ^{or a keyboard?} 13:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm surprised that this has generated so much discussion when it seems like a fairly clear-cut case to me. If we have determined that WP:PROF is not met, that makes things easier as WP:BIO is less subjective. I still don't see anything which demonstrates that BIO is met - Forbes is independent, but not substantial; Wharton is substantial, but not independent (they are writing about their student and these kinds of articles are inherently promotional and several keep !voters do not seem to acknowledge this). Those are the only non-primary sources where he is the subject, articles he has written are of no use for determining notability. SmartSE (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]