Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert J. Swieringa

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. Tone 15:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Swieringa

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Although he is published, I'm not convinced he meets the requirements. The sourcing in the article which has been around since 2008 is unimpressive. I did do a before Google search and didn't see enough that convinced me he is sufficiently notable in his field. Perhaps he is. Convince me... --David Tornheim (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a dean Dean of the S.C. Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell Universit, suject passes NACADEMIC#6 notability requirement. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. NACADEMIC#6 says:

The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

I do not believe he meets the standard. I believe the "highest-level" would be the President of Cornell, not just a dean, which is defined by our article for deans in the U.S. (Dean_(education)#Higher_education) to be a department head--which is my understanding as well, a bit like a VP in a corporation. There are numerous deans in every major academic institution, and I doubt all of warrant an article. Are there others that survived an AfD only on the grounds that they were deans where there were not multiple WP:RS to back them up? (or vice-versa?) --David Tornheim (talk) 10:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few refs. As normal, not many sources could be found for an academic as compared to a mainstream player/entertainers and yet their contribution is well-regarded. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I would withdrawal nomination, but I'm not sure those qualify as independent WP:RS, so I'll let others assess the overall WP:RS situation. I generally agree that big-named mainstream sports players, comics, movie stars, etc. probably get more coverage in the mainstream media than the workhorses of academia who make long-lasting contributions to knowledge. That said, I'm not convinced this particular individual did much other that hold positions of power, teach, and do some editing. "An outstanding teacher and lecturer, Swieringa won the Justice Foundation Award for Outstanding Teaching at Cornell and has received numerous awards and honors in recognition of his scholarly and professional work" [1] may be the case, but I am not seeing independent sources that talk at length about the accomplishments, innovation, etc. He just seems like an typical person of that rank with nothing that distinguishes him above and beyond the ordinary person of that position. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- They are reliable sources (RS) but might not be independent sources (IS), you dont find many IS for academic, how often do you see New York Times or Guardian newspaper have an article about the president of University of Penn State, or University of Sydney or National University of Singapore? Hardly, as they are not normal mainstream topics that interest the general public but you would see articles about "What is so funny about Gangnam Style"[2] or "cat rescue story" [3]. When it come to an academic, at times independent source might not applied in AfD. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - True. Academics--except the most exceptional, or self-promoting (e.g. Neil_deGrasse_Tyson, Carl Sagan, Bill Nye, Watson and Crick) or unique (e.g. Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein) or interesting (e.g. Richard Feynman)) [and strange that nearly all the examples that come to mind are from physics and astrophysics]--are rarely covered in mainstream media, but they are covered in review articles, journal articles, and books about their field, that are independent of the scholar and the institution that pays their salary. There's plenty out there on academics who have made major contributions to thought. When it comes to "What is so funny about Gangnam Style"[4] that's just a trend, and the way I see it, it's more about a fad that makes money for the entertainment industry than about anything of real substance--just a passing trend. When I first came to Wikipedia, I was surprised the mainstream media was taken so seriously as a source compared to the academic sources that have more substance, fact checking, editorial overview, and writers who are experts in the field of their subject. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - A review of his work on Google Scholar indicates his articles have been cited hundreds of times and published in the top accounting journals, such as the Journal of Accounting Research.H.al-shawaf (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - To that end, I added a list of some of his most cited works (per Google Scholar) to the page. As background, the FASB only invites one academic to the Board for any term. Academics on the board are pretty well respected for their achievements. He certainly comes off as an above-average academic.H.al-shawaf (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Definitely meets notability criteria as per WP:NACADEMIC. Spyder212 (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One possibly could try to make a case for passing WP:PROF on other grounds here, but he definitely does not satisfy WP:PROF#C6. There is an explicit explanation on this very point in WP:PROF#Specific criteria notes regarding Criterion 6: "Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a Provost of a major university may sometimes qualify)." So being a Dean is definitely not sufficient. Nsk92 (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the case a bit more closely, it seems clear that he does pass WP:PROF on other grounds. E.g. his Dean appointment at Cornel was a named position, as "the Anne and Elmer Lindseth Dean", according to the original announcement[5]; and he is currently listed at Cornell as a "Anne and Elmer Lindseth Dean Emeritus" in his faculty profile there. Arguably, that satisfies WP:PROF#C5. Also, his CV at Cornell[6] list a number of journal editorships, and a significant number of named/distinguished lectures. Looks sufficient to satisfy WP:PROF#C1. The article could use some updating, though. Nsk92 (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets notability criteria. Important enough in accounting policy circles to be a member of the Financial Accounting Standards Board from 1986-96 and to be on the board of GE. He has also taught at the leading U.S. business schools.H.al-shawaf (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2019 (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.