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. --auburnpilot talk 04:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Reisman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

I'm not convinced this individual, accomplished though he is, passes the bar of WP:PROF. The bio article is unreferenced (an obvious WP:BLP problem) and the external links are to pieces by the subject, not reliable secondary sources about the subject. He doesn't appear to be highly cited and none of his appointments seem to be of the exceptional nature required by the notability criteria. The main claim to notability seems to be the listing in Who's Who in America, though I'm not sure how much significance this holds (and there's no verification for the claim). Finally, the article has had significant COI editing in the past; not a reason to delete in itself, but it may indicate an element of WP:PROMOTION. EyeSerene^talk 16:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - A relevant AN/I thread is here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks BMK - that was what took me to the article in fact :) Your link is helpful though (should have thought of that myself). EyeSerene^talk 21:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Update. Per the latest evidence on the linked ANI thread, I've indefblocked Arnold Reisman as a self-promotional spam/advertising only account. This article should still stand or fall on it's own merits though. EyeSerene^talk 08:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Yes, he completely fails WP:PROF. His books do not make much of a splash, though some are cited, they are not "highly cited", to meet the requirement. Web of Knowledge does not list Reisman as being highly cited. Though it is not a valid argument (See WP:OTHERSTUFF), in my searches I kept finding other business economists and management engineers who were more highly cited than Reisman but who did not have a Wikipedia article, people such as Donovan Young and Elwood S. Buffa. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Scholar results (Note that Google Scholar has problems related to establishing notability, as detailed at WP:PROF):
    • The book Systems Approach and the City (1972), which was co-written by Mihajlo D. Mesarović and Reisman, has been cited in more than a dozen scholarly works (not counting Reisman citing himself), as seen in a Google Scholar search. A dozen cites on Google Scholar may mean only half a dozen peer-reviewed journals, which does not meet the requirement of being highly cited.
    • The book Management science knowledge : its creation, generalization, and consolidation (1992) has been cited by more than 30 others.
    • The journal article "The devolution of OR/MS: implications from a statistical content analysis of papers in flagship journals" (1994) has been cited by more than 60 others.
    • The journal article "Research strategies used by OR/MS workers as shown by an analysis of papers in flagship journals" (1995) has been cited by more than 30 others.
• Comment - Regarding Reisman's listing in various "Who's Who in ..." volumes, I note that our article indicates some doubt about how rigorous their selection process is [1]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have to assume that one of their stringent criteria is that the check has to clear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep on the basis ofthe citation to the work, which probably shows him an authority. Weak because almost none of the books are by high-level publishers. DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep on the basis of the results of this Google Scholar search, which i believe i've designed to be pretty specific to the right "a reisman". Seems to show an h-index of around 20, with five articles/books cited over 50 times (GS lacks an option to sort by citation count so you have to look through a few pages of results). Given that GS will have missed a lot of citations too old to be online (as evidenced by the fact that the top 5 counts are for things published since 1992 when he was 58, and by the number of results that aren't themselves online), i believe his true h-index is probably a fair bit higher, which would seem pretty good for operational research / management science. I also noticed his book "Managerial and Engineering Economics" got an honourable mention from the judges of the Frederick W. Lanchester Prize of INFORMS in 1970, a year the prize itself wasn't awarded (couldn't help noticing the seminal Box–Jenkins book on time series also only got an honourable mention, which seems a little surprising with the benefit of hindsight). Qwfp (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2010 (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.