 | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 January 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Notability edit
@Dreadarthur: I see that you have been working to create this page. It seems to me, so far, that the page does not yet meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics. If you haven't already done so, you may want to refer to WP:ACADEMIC before continuing to invest your time developing this page. —Boruch Baum (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
@Dreadarthur: I received your note on my talk page asking me to review this page for compliance with Wikipedia's notability standards. Let's continue the discussion here, on the project talk page, to keep things in one place.
I've reviewed the article and did not find the subject notable. I then referred to WP:ACADEMIC to see if there wasn't a standard by which it should be included. Based upon the text of the article as currently written, the only criteria that seemed that might plausibly maybe fit was #1, "the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", so I proceeded to WP:ACADEMIC#Specific criteria notes to review how to evaluate that criteria, and discovered a few more hurdles for the article to overcome:
- "the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed ... Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided. Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient"
- "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient"
So then I tried something else. The article claims "Lehman is considered to be a major contributor to behavioral and sociological[6] perspectives in accounting research", so I checked out the footnote. Bad citation. You should consider finding another one, or deleting the statement. The footnote points to a single acknowledgment in a single book by another academic who doesn't seem to be notable by Wikipedia standards. The acknowledgment is relegated to the middle of the sixth of seven paragraphs of the acknowledgment, and resounds "The work of critical accountants such as David Cooper, Tony Tinker, Marilyn Neimark, Cheryl Lehman and Hugh Willmott has certainly made my task less onerous." So, the citation does not seem to support the claim of the statement; please find a correct citation for the claim, or expect the claim to be deleted from the article.
For completeness' sake, since Lehman was listed as fourth of five in that list buried in the acknowledgment, I decided to check if the others were the subject of Wikipedia articles. None were. That doesn't mean they might not be notable, but that's where I stopped.
—Boruch Baum (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)