Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey H. Cohen
- 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Jeffrey H. Cohen (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)
He doesn't meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC).
- Comment, leaning keep. Scholar lists his h-index as 26, which seems insanely high for an anthropologist. I'm sure there are reviews out there of his several highly cited books, which I'll look for. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes both WP:PROF#C1 (heavy citations to his works) and WP:AUTHOR (multiple published reviews of multiple books, now in the article). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Clear pass of WP:PROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 and WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, Article passes WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR Alex-h (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. I would not call an h-index of 26 "insanely high" for anthropology. Even social anthropology, which seems to be what Cohen does, sits somewhere between the humanities and sciences, so one does expect publishing rates there to be higher than, say, for the classics professors. Still 26 is pretty good, and 5 top cited publications are at 200+. He also has several editorship (2 journals and a book series). So overall a plausible case for passing WP:PROF#C1. Also, based on multiple published book reviews, looks like passes WP:AUTHOR as well. Nsk92 (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
