Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Kling

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. Although a raw !vote count would come to only 3-2, I am satisfied that the arguments to keep have yielded a reasonable and actionable consensus here by demonstrating that the coverage is there. KaisaL (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Kling

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

Google finds fewer than 150 unique hits for this name, and that includes a fair number of Wikipedia articles where the name was added by the author of this article, who is an associate of the subject. The article has never had reliable independent sources to substantiate notability. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, no real coverage or inherited notability. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You can't trust GHits because Google truncates results. For instance I get up to 221 hits for the more restrictive "Arnold Kling" site:*.edu, and only to 173 hits for a bare "Barack Obama" (YMMV). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His 2013 book Three Languages of Politics was reviewed in the WSJ[1]. Nowadays, it shows up on syllabi[2], in magazine articles[3], and in university press books[4]. His 2006 book Crisis of Abundance: Rethinking how We Pay for Health Care was reviewed in the New England Journal of Medicine [5], Political Studies Review [6] and The New Atlantis [7]. His 2009 book, From Poverty to Prosperity: Intangible Assets, Hidden Liabilities, and the Lasting Triumph Over Scarcity (with Nick Schulz) was called an "important new book" by David Brooks in the New York Times[8], called a "phenomenal new book" in the NY Post by Jonah Goldberg[9], it was reviewed in Foreign Affairs [10], also shows up in university syllabi[11], and continues to attract citation in the popular press like this article in The Hill from 2016[12]. I think it's clear that he's attracted sufficient critical attention to pass WP:AUTHOR 4c.--Jahaza (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jahaza's list of sources showing repeated attention to his work. Another example: his 2016 book is reviewed by Yuval Levin in The National Review [13]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree, Kling is well known and widely read and discussed in economics and policy. He definitely has a point of view, but that doesn't mean he isn't a suitable subject for an article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2017 (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.