Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Cohen (economist)

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. Result based upon combination of the arguments below and the blanking of the article by its primary contributor with an edit summary indicating the article subject had requested removal of the article. Allen3 ^talk 14:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Cohen (economist)

Lauren Cohen (economist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Lack of notability. WP:PROF probably applies here and Cohen does not satisfy any of the criteria. He comes closest to Number 6: "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." However, there is no evidence that the awards he received are notable. Carabinieri 00:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Just isn't passing WP:PROF for me. --LeyteWolfer 02:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Note restated, mollified opinion below after #1 ranking added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 22:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the prizes don't seem very notable. Fails WP:PROF. If someone can provide proof of the notability of the prizes, I'll change my mind. --Agüeybaná 02:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 03:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Two best paper awards, while praiseworthy, aren't what I think WP:PROF means by a notable award or honor, and one upcoming paper in a very good journal is still not really a sign of notability. As for the weightlifting thing, again, I think that 2nd place at junior nationals is impressive but falls short of the bar. —David Eppstein 03:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Article now includes more impressive athletic credentials: a #1 ranking at one point, and competition at nationals. —David Eppstein 15:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Fails WP:PROF but it looks like he passes the notability guidelines for athletes (though admittedly I know nothing about powerlifting). faithless (^speak) 06:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Just seems to fail notability for me. Not by much, but by enough. Benea 06:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. --Crusio 07:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment major change to his notability as an athlete was just added.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep seems to be a list of significant accomplishments that border on passing WP:PROF and probably passes for an athlete bio. I think the combination passes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Iffy-Delete: The added reference is a list of standings published and not an article highlighting specific participants. I'm downgrading to 'iffy' simply because I'm not comfortale saying 'no' in an arena not my specialty, but I do have an interest in keeping Wikipedia spam-article free. I guess my concern is that if I polled every one of my collegues, acquaintances, friends & family, would anyone have ever heard of him outside Wikipedia but in the varied interests of such a wide net. I suspect not, but cannot be certain. --LeyteWolfer 15:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It is the official list of top 20 ranked powerlifters in each weight class by lift and totals for the 2006 year. Lauren is #1 in the nation in the squat. If being #1 does not grant WP notability recognition, then the sport is not being treated fairly by wikipedia.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If WP were to have a WP:N for athletes it would say something like National Champions or top ranked athletes in their sport or event are considered notable. Lauren would pass by this standard if it were expressly stated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Doesn't WP:SPORT say something like "has competed at the highest level"? Anyway having had a #1 ranking he should be considered notable unless weightlifting in the US is a non-notable sport. Move it to Lauren Cohen (weightlifter) if he's not notable as an economist. Kappa 17:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment It looks like weightlifting si a sport different from powerlifting, see [1] versus [2] --Crusio 17:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Yes the proper move would be to Lauren Cohen (powerlifter), but he borders on notability as an economist, his profession is as an economist and if you look in the external links at his CV it suggest that will be his focus going forward. Powerlifting is an article and thus seems notable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as it stands per WP:PROF; if the article is recreated to focus on his powerlifting career, with due assertions of notability that's another matter, although even then I think the subject is only marginally notable, in the dark with the light behind him. Eusebeus 19:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or rename, as an economist he isn't notable enough. As a powerlifter maybe he is, so if that's the case, rename accordingly. But making the focus his academic rather than sporting work seems to be a way of piggy backing his non notable career onto a notable one. Needs a rewrite, or at least a rename. Also see WP:Crystal Ball. Maybe he will become a notable economist but that's not for us to say at the moment and it'd be wrong to anticipate. Also potential conflict of interest as User:TonyTheTiger seems to know this figure personally, from the photo description.Benea 01:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment1 I have moved the page to Lauren H. Cohen with redirects from Lauren Harry Cohen, Lauren Cohen (economist), Lauren Cohen (powerlifter), Lauren Cohen (professor). That should address all the rename concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment2 Recall that according to WP:NAME, the page name should be what most people would "easily recognize". Also, according to WP:COMMONNAME you should ask what will people be searching for. Although by WP notability rules he is more notable as a powerlifter, he will probably be most searched by students and collegues trying to figure out why Harvard stole this guy from Yale after two years there. I think this page move answers that and a change in emphasis of the page is not really important given that probability.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment3 with respect to WP:COI, policy expressly states that there is no bar from my editorial participation in the article. My conflict of interest is minor in that I was a former classmate of his who knows him as well as anyone in the WP community. We have visited at each others residences, worked out at the gym together (I am a former powerlifter) and entertained together. At weddings, we have been seated next to each other and the picture is what use to be on my cell phone. I know his wife and Lauren and I share many common acquaintances. None of these facts nor the image caption really indicate anything that is not POV, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment4WRT WP:PROF, I think a special consideration should be given in this case and any similar ones where any junior faculty member who has been so outstanding in the first two years after receiveing his Ph.D. that he has been stolen by one of the top five departments in the nation in his field, with special attention to Harvard stealing a Yale faculty member in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 19:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - my concerns have been largely addressed by the rename. No particularly obvious POV or COI violations in the text, and as long as he's notable as a powerlifter then I don't have a particular problem with the article. Benea 20:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Cohen doesn't at all meet WP:BIO. The criterium you are basing your keep votes on is "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." Please read the part in the parentheses. There are no secondary, non-trivial sources about Cohen's athletic career, therefore the article also fails WP:BIO and should be deleted.--Carabinieri 12:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You may not have noticed my comment4 above, but I believe that there should be special considertaion on that basis as a professor. Also, I believe a Federation national #1 ranking counts as secondary source as far as athletes go.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree that any article should get special consideration. There are three different notability standards that could possibly apply to this article: WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:PROF; it fails all of them. There just aren't any secondary, non-trivial sources on this topic. Score sheets from competitions don't "count" as secondary sources, because they just aren't secondary sources, they are primary sources.--Carabinieri 16:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - sorry to keep changing my view on this but I've been looking seriously at the evidence and I agree with User:Carabinieri. There are no independent sources that prove he is notable as an athelete. There are lots of tables for competitions that he has done well in, but so did a lot of people. He came first in one weight group (I think that's how it works) but then dozens of other people came first in their respective weight groups. How is he any different to them? And your comment 4 really isn't convincing. Yes he seems to be very good at what he does but that does not make him notable, a lot of people are good at their jobs and are not worthy of an entry. Wait until his achievements make him notable, not his potential, see WP:Crystal Ball. And if you're asking for special dispensation, it's a good indicator your subject does not meet those standards. You're trying to base this article on a combination of two areas where he might be notable. I can't see how he is notable in either, and combining the two still doesn't make him notable. Fails WP:BIO. Benea 04:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article now cites plenty of sources and establishes notability as a powerlifter. Chubbles 23:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:PROF and any reasonable guidelines for academics. Assistant professor, with three articles in press. That just isn't enough, even though they are in first rate journals. If they are sensationally successful articles and become widely cited, then he would probably be notable--and I would rely on the number of citations and whether the Harvard Business School gives tenure on that--if they do, it would say something. "Harvard stealing the guy from Yale" would have meant much more if they had promoted him, rather than just giving him the same rank--the beginning tenure-track rank. I'm not about to judge the notability of unpublished manuscripts--or even published papers--that's not the role of WP--rather we judge whether the academic world thinks they're notable. Nor are the awards notable or significant. Most of them are merely undergraduate or graduate fellowships. I'm sorry for coming in late here, but i did not imagine the article would be seriously defended. If he is notable as an athlete, then we can remove all the puffery about his so far undemonstrated academic proficiency. DGG (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Close this already, obviously non-notable. Article does not cite plenty of reliable sources to establish notability. Bring it back when the guy does something notable. IvoShandor 22:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per OTRS ticket Ticket#2007092110001117, plus fails prof test. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have to say that an OTRS ticket doesn't seem like a strong reason to delete something considering almost no one can see it.IvoShandor 06:06, 21 September 2007 (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.