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 22:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Robert D. Cherry (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

I'm struggling to find any secondary reliable sourcing on the subject. This appears to be a non-notable academic. There are 7 criteria for academic notability ( WP:NACADEMIC) and the subject doesn't meet any of them as far as I can tell: [1] . Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• keep, has multiple reviews such as "Social Service Review, Vol. 82, No. 2 (June 2008), pp. 335-338", "Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 19, No. 6 (Nov., 1990), pp. 809-81", etc. passes WP:NAUTHOR and probably also WP:NPROF since these are reviews in academic journals. -- hroest 20:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Doesn't that fall under the exceptions under Point 1 of ( WP:NACADEMIC)? Virtually every academic who has published books in the social sciences will have at least some reviews of some of those books. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 20:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Honestly, I dont know how difficult it is to get a review into an academic journal as I am a biomedical researcher. Do you mean "Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here." -- on the other hand we generally allow authors to be notable per WP:NAUTHOR if they have multiple independent reviews of their books, so according to WP:NAUTHOR alone he would be notable, correct? -- hroest 00:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• • Hannes Röst, Could you clarify your post? Do you mean that his life has been subject to reviews? His works? Or that he has written then? In the future, please link the sources you cite, or at least provide full information like the titles of the works you are referring to. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Hi Piotrus. Took me a few minutes to look them up based on the refs given: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/590570 and https://www.jstor.org/stable/2073178?refreqid=excelsior%3A2ec11bb4dcd0d96d5a4576246ed43ea6 - they are book reviews of his work. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 08:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Kj cheetham, Ah. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, I think they could make some of his works (books) notable (if any received a at least 2+ reviews), but do not mean the writer is. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply
        • Piotrus What about clause 3 of WP:AUTHOR, treating it as a "collective body of work"? I admit I've not looked for other reviews beyond these 2, as I assumed these were sufficient. But I think hroest said he found more. Plus the named professorship mentioned below under WP:NPROF. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 11:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply
        • Piotrus that does not seem to be a good faith argument, if there were only a single relevant book then WP:BLP1E would apply but clearly if someone wrote multiple notable books then that person is also notable. This is also clear in policy see WP:AUTHOR#1. In addition the person also clearly fulfills WP:NPROF#1 and WP:NPROF#5. It this point the evidence is just overwhelming. -- hroest 15:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• keep Google Scholar shows a good amount of citations, in thousands, so he meets WP:PROF. Webmaster862 ( talk)

Please give a link to these thousands. Xxanthippe ( talk) 06:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC). reply

I looked at https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=RD+Cherry&btnG= but seems to be more than one person included in this list. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 11:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment he was head of economics at Brooklyn College meets nprof. [2], [3], [www.brooklyn.cuny.edu›web›aca_centers_wolfe›Future_of_Policing], [4] Davidstewartharvey ( talk) 08:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment Davidstewartharvey being a head of a unit does not meet WP:NPROF, but a named professorship ("Broeklundian Professorship") would. -- hroest 13:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply

hroest He was a named Broeklundian Professorship, see [5]. Davidstewartharvey ( talk) 14:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment Davidstewartharvey yes, exactly my point :-) -- hroest 16:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep as per Hannes Röst. - Kj cheetham ( talk) 14:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete'. While I think we need to be more inclusive for academics, I can't see what makes him notable. No awards, no indication his work is impactful. It seems he wrote a single book but I failed to locate a single academic review of it. I'd be happy to reconsider my vote if anyone pings me and shows me sources that describe his life, impact, work, or such. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ Piotrus: Beyond the couple of book reviews, what about the named professorship? - Kj cheetham ( talk) 08:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Kj cheetham, I still don't believe the reviews of their books are relevant but named professorship is listed at NPROF. Now, the subject still fails NBIO/GNG, but that has hardly stopped the torrent flood of bios about sportspeople who meet some specialized NSPORTBIO defended by several fans. So I am withdrawing my deletion vote, not because I believe the subject is notable, but because I think we need to be more inclusive for academics in general. Treat my abstain / rationale however you will. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ Piotrus: I found multiple reviews on JSTOR here as indicated in my comment above. -- hroest 13:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    • hroest I think something has gone wrong with that link? - Kj cheetham ( talk) 11:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply
      • comment hmm it works for me, but only if logged in through a University. Sorry about that, I usually dont use JSTOR and it seems to be only semi-public unfortunately. In either case, I see 29 results and easily several book reviews. Some of these are by Cherry himself, and at least one is about a book by a different Robert Cherry (Wilt, I assume an economics prof did not write a sports persons biography). I can add some quotes:

• Rather than simply retell the story, Cherry carefully ties some key dimensions together to create a policy tapestry in which he considers several proposals for the future Review: [Untitled] Demetra Smith Nightingale Social Service Review, Vol. 82, No. 2 (June 2008), pp. 335-338
• His argument is compelling. In eleven creatively organized chapters, Cherry synthesizes the complex body of scholarly literature ... Review: [Untitled] Ivy Kennelly Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Jul., 2002), pp. 420-421
• Review: [Untitled] Nina Shapiro Eastern Economic Journal, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Apr., 1981), pp. 137-139
• Review: [Untitled] Allison J. Pugh Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 42, No. 6 (November 2013), pp. 832-833

each one about a different book that Cherry wrote. ... I clearly see a lot of coverage of different books over the whole career. -- hroest 15:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 04:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 04:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 04:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 04:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Subject served as Broeklundian Professorship, as cited in the article as above. He has written several books that have been reviewed in a variety of publications, also cited above. If they are not included in the article, then they should be added. The subject easily meets WP:GNG and WP:NPROF as a university educator and because of the Broeklundian professorship and academic journals cited above and in the article. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 19:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:PROF#C5 and the Broeklundian Professorship and per WP:AUTHOR and the book reviews discussed above. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:53, 15 April 2021 (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.