Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Powell

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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Powell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article on an American academic that describes his publications. GNG fail. I could be wrong, but a search turned up very little on him. He is a director of an institute, and I'm aware that some academic chair positions equate to notability. On the other hand, the only claim to notability I can see here is that he has published articles, which is true of all academics. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Easy pass of WP:PROF #1 and #7. Multiple interviews with media and conservative organizations, which is unusual for academics.[1][2][3][4][5] There are also multiple reviews (of varying quality) of his 2014 book [6][7][8][9] His work seems to be frequently cited by pro-sweatshop advocates (for example, [10][11][12][13][14]). buidhe 22:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have found these three reviews of one of the subject's books, and his Google Scholar profile shows 1790 citations with an h-index of 21. I think that is enough for a pass of WP:PROF. As always, it's not the publishing of books and articles that makes an academic notable, but the reviews and citations by others that those publications attract. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – The fact that his organizations, the Independent Institute and Texas Tech, are highly regarded gives weight to his own notability. – S. Rich (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that this article should be kept, on the basis of Powell's individual notability, but that doesn't mean that anyone who works for the Independent Institute or Texas Tech is notable: see WP:NOTINHERITED. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A bit of digging reveals that he meets numerous criteria under WP:PROF, particularly #1 (publishing record and google scholar citation metrics, along with being known for his work on immigration and sweatshops), #6 (performed the role of director and other high ranking positions at academic journals and institutions), and #7—which I think makes the strongest case for him (has authored several books, regularly contributes to popular media outlets, and has a long list of appearances on conventional media)[15][16]. The wiki page can use some beefing-up (I've seen worst) but it should not be deleted.eljorgio 19:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:25, 4 February 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.