Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilan Strauss

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. ^Complex/_Rational 14:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan Strauss

[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)

Looks far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF notability for this 2020 PhD with a handful of citations in a medium to high citation field. Prodded by Dclemens1971. Deprodded by SPA Shegad with a note that they had fixed all the issues, but adding primary sources does not help establish NPROF notability. The FT reference is only a passing mention (and there is little other sign of GNG), and the grant may help the subject do notable work, but does not itself contribute to notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, and South Africa. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: (only listing the independent sources):

The Financial Times talks about this paper he co-authored with three other people
El Economista does too.
Cory Doctorow also does in a self-published medium blog
He signed a letter signed by 76 economists
Quoted as an expert by News24
Mentioned he'll study a particular thing as part of a project.

2 sources for the paper on the attention economy, 4 sources unhelpful because they are self-published/non-significant coverage + probably written by him given its him signing it/not commenting on him/also woul dargue not significant coverage, and non-independent.

It looks like his best claim to encyclopedic notability is the paper he co-authored, but since none of the sources discuss him, or really his co-authors, probably it would go in an article about the theory itself (rents in the attention economy). We also do have a page on Attention economy, so *maybe* there? Mrfoogles (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, having done the source review and google-searched him. Cannot find any independent, reliable sources significantly discussing him, and there's no reason to think there are any. Mrfoogles (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The source analysis above confirms what I found when I reviewed them and did a BEFORE search before PRODding. He fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Note that the page creator is a COI/UPE editor. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too few citations to his work to pass WP:PROF and the source review above confirms that he also does not pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP: TOOSON — Preceding unsigned comment added by Instant History (talk • contribs) 05:28, 1 September 2024 (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.