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 no consensus. NW (Talk) 23:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Hekman[edit]

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

I'll be happier once this article is run through AfD. The most one can say about this assistant professor's h-index is that it is non-zero. Article seems like a vanity page to me, with photo. Article claims his work on pay disparity has been been mentioned quite a bit in the media. Is it enough to pass WP:PROF? Abductive (reasoning) 18:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - David Hekman is a notable academic because he has published four top-tier academic business articles, which fewer than 5 percent of business professors have done. ^[1] He is also the lead author on a paper that has been featured in many of the most notable media outlets including The New York Times,^[2] The Washington Post,^[3] The Boston Globe,^[4] The Globe and Mail ^[5] and National Public Radio.^[6] This is quite rare for his field (business management), as most full or chaired business professors have not had their work featured in these outlets. Hekman has also had a different academic article of his featured on This American Life. ^[7] diversity23 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - David Hekman is a notable academic because he has published four top-tier academic business articles, which fewer than 5 percent of business professors have done. ^[8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.248.193.244 (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC) — 68.248.193.244 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References[edit]

^ White, M.C., Barnett, T., Bowers, W.P., Long, R.G. (1998) "Research productivity of graduates in management: effects of academic origin and academic affiliation." Academy of Management Journal, 41(6), 704-714.
^ Bakalar, Nicholas (2009) “A Customer Bias in Favor of White Men.” New York Times. June 23, 2009, page D6. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/health/research/23perc.html?ref=science
^ Vedantam, Shankar (2009) “Caveat for Employers.” Washington Post, June 1, 2009, page A8 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/31/AR2009053102081.html
^ Jackson, Derrick (2009) “Subtle, and stubborn, race bias.” Boston Globe, July 6, 2009, page A10 http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/07/06/subtle_and_stubborn_race_bias/
^ Waugh, B. & Moscato, D. (2009) "Customer Prejudice: Women and Minority Employees unfairly evaluated" Globe and Mail, June, 22, page A1. http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/ubcreports/2009/09jul02/prejudice.html
^ National Public Radio, Lake Effect, http://www.wuwm.com/programs/lake_effect/view_le.php?articleid=754
^ Glass, Ira. (2008) "Ruining It for the Rest of Us" Episode 370. Original Air Date December 18, 2008 http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio_episode.aspx?sched=1275
^ White, M.C., Barnett, T., Bowers, W.P., Long, R.G. (1998) "Research productivity of graduates in management: effects of academic origin and academic affiliation." Academy of Management Journal, 41(6), 704-714.

Weak delete - I dislike the h-index, but prefer Google scholar, which shows only 8 Ghits, so in any case, I see little evidence of notability under WP:PROF, at least as of now. Also: not a full professor yet; not a department chairperson yet; no major awards yet, etc. FWIW, even I have citations in the popular press. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But under the general guidelines, not WP:PROF. Like almost all assistant professors, not yet notable as an academic under WP:PROF. But it is necessary to actually look at the citation record, not just count. Using the proper citation index, Scopus, which finds 4 papers, all in good journals, citations 5, 0, 0, 0. But this is not quite what it seems, for the 1 with 5 citations was his doctoral work, published in 06, and the other 3 only in 09, so they cannot be expected to have published citations yet. The work reported by the papers is none of these, but a paper that is still in press "Hekman, D.R., Aquino, K.A., Owens, B., Mitchell, T.R., Schilpzand, P., Leavitt, K., (in press) “An Examination of Whether and How Racial and Gender Biases Influence Customer Satisfaction.” Academy of Management Journal. This paper has apparently attracted attention in the newspapers, as is not unusual for a paper on "hot-button" topics. The newspaper attention is significant, and makes him notable. It may or may not attract academic attention. the article needs some rewriting, and I started in on it. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and FWIW, publishing 4 articles , though a little more than the average faculty member does in most subjects, is not enough to make faculty notable as such. It depends on the articles, and in the academic world their influence and their impact on the profession is measured by citations. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article claims notability. Research gives the appearance of notability for the author for the one paper. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Xxanthippe (talk) 08:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As DGG has correctly argued above, he does not satisfy WP:PROF. The only claim to notability seems to be the media attention on "An Examination of Whether and How Racial and Gender Biases Influence Customer Satisfaction" ~~where he is one of the five authors~~. It does look like a case of WP:BLP1E to me. CronopioFlotante (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete He obviously fails PROF. Is it sufficient under GNG that his paper has been discussed in a couple of newspapers? I think that requires setting the bar rather too low. If it is kept, further cleanup will be needed to resolve issues of self-published. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. He doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF yet but the media attention to more than one of his studies is enough for WP:GNG, I think. In response to CronopioFlotante: if it were only the one study, it would be a case of BIO1E, but the American Life piece is about a different one, I think. As for "one of five authors", the NYT article calls him the lead author. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the non-alphabetical ordering of authors suggests that he is the lead author. Fixed my statement above. On the other hand, the non-alphabetical ordering of authors in the article that appears in American Life suggests that he is not a lead author of that work (he is listed third). Also, it is not him who is interviewed but Will Felps (presumably the lead author of the paper). CronopioFlotante (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It has been well established above that WP:Prof notability is not met. The subject's work on hot issues in social anthropology has garnered a few newspaper articles, not uncommon for that topic of popular interest. However a much more substantial record is needed for notability. For a researcher who publishes in the scholarly literature many hundred of citations to dozens of refereed papers are usually needed for notability. I am unwilling to accept that one article in a newspaper is somehow equivalent to a hundred citations in the refereed literature although I am not able to say what sort of equivalence can be established. The article has been created too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Xxanthippe makes a well-reasoned argument. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Follow-up. Are the first two opinions at the top from the same person? Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Question - The field of business is quite new (the top journal, Academy of Management Journal, is only 52 years old), and the initial couple decades of research in the field done by business gurus can hardly be considered research. The WP:PROF guidelines basically exclude faculty from new fields because the fields are small (which means low citation counts), the pioneer faculty were typically not researchers (e.g. business gurus), and the best work in the field is the most recent work. Should Wikipedia include faculty from new academic fields? Diversity23 (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

52 years is pretty old for a journal. Still, I understand the point of your argument; the early work in developing fields is done outside of traditional academia. However, all this means is that it is typically documented in books, not journals. Google Books searching will uncover these sources. Abductive (reasoning) 18:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Per diversity - Ret.Prof (talk)

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.