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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Morici (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)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason the subject is notable in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. Sources offered are trivial (a Who's Who entry) or WP:PRIMARY (a paper written by the subject) or fail to mention the subject at all (the albany.edu link). Msnicki (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable as an academic. Who's Who in America, while based on submissions from biographies, has editorial oversight and either omits less significant submissions or moves them to less significant volumes, such as Who's Who in the East. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who in America is a directory but it's not considered a WP:RS. Yes, they have editors who compile it but so does the Yellow Pages. Much of the information is usually simply passed along uncritically from whatever the subject replied to their questionaire. Please see previous discussion at Reliable Sources. Msnicki (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A full professor according to this University of Maryland faculty list. A "notable alumnus" of the University at Albany's economics department according to this link. I fixed the abany.edu alumni link in the article. Apparently after the article was first created the University at Albany replaced the alumni page with a redirect to the main economics department page, which is why the nominator saw a page that didn't mention the subject of the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of full professors in the US, never mind the world, and we certainly don't include them all. We need sources to establish this one is notable. Msnicki (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Another comment: While the paper cited in the article doesn't count as a reliable source, it includes a biography on page 3 that supports my impression that he is notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding, right? That's a bio he obviously wrote himself. That's as WP:PRIMARY as it gets. Msnicki (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I came here after reading this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/us/politics/many-in-gop-offer-theory-default-wouldnt-be-that-bad.html . He seems pretty important. I was glad to have the Wikipedia page to help me figure out who he was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Originalname37 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the news and it's valuable are what we call an arguments to avoid. We decide WP:NOTABILITY not based on whether a subject seems notable but rather based on whether we can find reliable independent secondary sources offering substantial coverage of the subject. I don't think those sources exist. Msnicki (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Very often gives expert opinion on major national news channels: CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NPR, BBC, CNBC. Recognized public expert and commentator in his field. PROF #7 "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His own appearances are WP:PRIMARY. You can't make yourself notable just by offering your opinions on TV any more than you can by convincing a publisher to distribute your book. Other people not connected with you (e.g., not your employer and not just one talking head turning the mike over to you as the second talking head) have to say things about you in reliable sources and it has to be significant coverage. Where is that? Msnicki (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They would be primary if he worked there, or as a Public Relations officer in the course of doing a job, or some fact was being cited that had a COI - but in terms of the news show and news host inviting him onto the show, the sources are not primary, they show he is a sought-after expert who was invited onto the show for his expertise. It's not citing him, rather citing the news show in regards who they invited on the show. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing on TV and offering his own view is not a WP:SECONDARY source as required to establish WP:NOTABILITY. "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Msnicki (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but repeating: there is a difference between the authors opinion, and the news show's opinion that he should be invited onto the show as an expert. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only news show's opinion we can be reasonably sure of is that they think viewers will watch, possibly because he's the next best thing to watching someone set their own hair on fire. It's not secondary until someone else not connected actually analyzes what he has to say and adds their own thoughts and it's not useful to us for establishing the subject's notability until they do it in a reliable source and only if the comments are actually biographical and about him as opposed to being simply an opposing view. There is nothing in WP:ANYBIO that offers an exception to the requirement for sources if only the subject often appears as a talking head. Msnicki (talk) 08:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG does not require secondary sources. It requires sources that independent of the subject. The news shows are independent of Morici - he is not an employee, is not paid to appear, is not reading a script, he is simply a guest who was asked to appear due to his expertise on the topic. That is absolutely a sign of notability and permissible under the rules. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct. From WP:GNG, ""Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." (emphasis added)
And from WP:BASIC, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (emphasis added)
The exceptions are the cases identified in WP:ANYBIO, where there's evidence of notability in lieu of sources. This is not one of those cases.
At this point, I'm going to let it rest. The closing moderator should certainly be capable of resolving questions of what the guidelines ask of us and I'm satisfied I have this right. Msnicki (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- full professor at a major research school whose expertise is frequently cited in the news. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk)

There are lots of full professors at major research schools. Further, he not cited in the news, he simply makes appearances. A citation that included the author's own thinking about this subject or his views would be a secondary source and might establish notability. But just going on TV a lot to offer your opinions doesn't count. Msnicki (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It may be helpful to look at the Google Scholar search for his name at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Peter+Morici%22 Are his publications cited often enough to demonstrate notability? What impact numbers does an economist need to demonstrate notability? (I realize that I should have mentioned this a week ago.) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:02, 17 October 2013 (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.