Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Crotty

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 of the debate was to be dealt with by copyvio. Mailer Diablo 08:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Crotty

Delete. I apologize. A good professor, but the article is just a resume without claims of notability. Professors are supposed to write articles. The question is how people evaluate them. Google search gives several dozen of various Jameses Crotties. If exclude most notorious ("James Crotty" -"american express" -"wildlife" -artist -photography), of remaining 300 unique google results I failed to find any third-party discussionss of the importance of this person besides various resumes. Mukadderat 00:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep 76 hits on Google Scholar Dlyons493 Talk 00:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, he wrote a number of articles during his long life (as all professors do). Mukadderat 02:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Ruby 02:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Avalon 05:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The criterion on WP:BIO explicitly states, "Is this person more notable than the average college professor?" Take your problem with this (deeply flawed, IMO) criterion to the relevant talk page; keep it off AfD. -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Is mentioned by name for his economic ideas in publications like Business World and Journal of Economic Issues. Note: this isn't quoting one of his publications, but the man himself. I can give you examples if you like.--Commander Keane 11:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Obviously meets standards for published writers. Monicasdude 14:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Monicasdude. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing outstanding in the trade Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics. Three dozen of quotations (half of which in his own papers) is not what I would call "heavily quoted". Unless we want wikipedia be Who Is Who (what!!! no article for "Who's'Who"?) for all untold billions of ever living people. mikka (t) 19:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this article IS just a resume: it's lifted from James Crotty's home page [1]. I'm not sure that James Crotty can be considered more notable than average, either: on what basis are we making that comparison? I'm a prof myself, but definitely less notable than average, and I get more hits on Google Scholar than this guy, and more hits on Google than ""James Crotty" +economics": loose evidence to be sure, but I figure he should have passed that test easily if he really deserves a WP entry. The article needs to establish that he is, in fact, a more-notable-than-average professor, and it doesn't, and I doubt he is. Mangojuice 19:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There's no evidence that anything this man wrote had a readership of more than 5,000. Most academic articles have a readership in the hundreds. BrianGCrawfordMA 19:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. In tying in with my 'keep' above I'll provide some evidence. I think we are here to descide if the person is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. The state of the article is irrelevent - it can be improved at any time (unless it's deleted of course). I found these pieces of evidence using the subcription base Factiva. I think if a person is quoted in the general media (newspapers in this case) then that is some sort of notability. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, can we afford to keep this guy?
  • The Boston Globe. 21 December 2003. "Pollin's UMass-Amherst colleague, James Crotty, says the best way to understand the mixed messages - splurge or scrimp? - is to realize that the economy faces two big challenges."
  • Dollars & Sense. 1 July 2003. "The second paradox is what University of Massachusetts economist James Crotty calls the neoliberal paradox."
  • Daily Hampshire Gazette. 3 February 1997. "Unemployment rates are low, but there's a lot of churning in the market," said James Crotty, a professor of economics at UMass"--Commander Keane 20:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment The Daily Hampshire Gazette is a local paper; the other two are good IMO. Still, I don't think a couple of quotes in newspapers makes a great case here. Maybe if he was interviewed by a reputable paper or magazine... but anyone can get quoted now and then. As for state of article: you're right, but we delete articles all the time if they don't claim the notability of their subject. Mangojuice 20:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This reads like a CV/resume, which is certainly user-page material and not encyclopedia material. Vanity violation. Cdcon 22:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Papers don't confer notability, as per the guidelines for inclusion of academics. If he's written and published books, I'd reconsider. Stifle 11:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.Strong academic career and many papers on macroeconomics and Keynes. Robert Brenner several times responded to his critiques. Check his web site for details.

Also Mukadderaat, who are you that you decide who is a good or notable professor and who is not. Yo u most probably haven't done 1 percent of what he has done for economics. Ramil--71.195.182.195 18:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep - Response of Robert Brenner, prominent American economist to Crotty's critique. http://www.tidsskriftcentret.dk/index.php?id=165

Mukkaderat, do you know what is American Economic Review? If you know you should also know that economists are not published in this journal. Your stance is biased and most probably stems from your dislike of the heterodox economics.

• Copyvio with [2] - I can't believe no one here did a simple Google Search for the string "James Crotty". - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • If you read above you will see that the copyvio is noted. We are debating the notability of this person. The quality of the article is irrelevant.--Commander Keane 22:46, 22 February 2006 (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.