Zack Cooper: Bringing it to AfD as I still don't think the sources support notability.  I was and am unable to find sourcing about this individual, only things they've written.  Unsure if this would pass academic notability or notability for business people.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 18:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators , Authors , California , New Jersey ,  and Washington, D.C. .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep .  This scholar of international affairs has a good GS record that passes WP:Prof#C1 and has published notable books.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 22:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Delete I don't find anything independent about him.  In terms of publications, if you do a scholar search on "Zack Cooper" you get high hits but it is someone else - someone who writes about hospitals.  If you add "Japan" to the search you get cites in the single to very low double digits.  There's the same confusion in WorldCat books, but this Zack Cooper's books are found again in the single digits.  (In VIAF he's "Cooper, Zack‏ ‎‡c  (Researcher in security studies)‏".  With the 2 keep ! votes above I wonder if this name confusion wasn't noticed.  Lamona ( talk ) 22:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Click on the scholar link above which differentiates between the two Zack Coopers.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 23:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Thanks, I overlooked that.  I still don't think he meets NPROF.  His H-index is not high, in almost all of his publications he's one of 3 or 4 authors.  I see no indication that meets: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."  I don't see awards.  For AUTH we have " is known for originating a significant new concept," "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work".  Just being an author or co-author of articles is not enough.  I don't see that he is someone known for furthering a body of knowledge.  Lamona ( talk ) 15:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It is certainly a borderline case.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 22:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for a guideline like NPROF there has to be a sub-heading under which he is said to qualify.   With respect to @ Xxanthippe I don't see how this person passes under #1 -- the article makes no assertion he's recognized for significant impact by others in his discipline.   No other heading seems to apply - he's not been a named chair professor or top academic institution leader, there's no assertion his publications have had significant impact, no evidence of impact outside of academia (meeting with a foreign official is a good start, but just a start), etc.  Oblivy ( talk ) 00:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Take a look at the scholar link, which I admit does not indicate outstanding citations.  What do you think of it?  I think that this BLP is borderline and might be argued to be a case of [WP:Too soon]].  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 03:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] I don't see a google scholar link.   Can you provide links, or just explain what you think demonstrates notability?   Note that WP:TOOSOON is grounds for deletion, such as for a recent news story or someone who has received what could be temporary notability.  Oblivy ( talk ) 03:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] On my screen the scholar link is 6.3 inches above this text.  It will work if you click it.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 03:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] So you just wanted want me to click on the google scholar link on the nomination template and do my own searches?  I do that anyway before voting -- it seems he's written a number of papers with a low citation count which is pretty close to irrelevant for notability IMHO. Oblivy ( talk ) 04:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep per WP:NPROF #1.  clearly a borderline case in a field (international relations) that does have a decent number of citations. Per GS he has 3 papers with 100+ citations which is generally enough to pass the bar even in biomedicine so I feel we should apply equal criteria here. Per his books, they all seem to be as editor which does not generally count for much and only one has a single review [33] so WP:NAUTHOR doesnt apply here. -- hroest 10:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ...  I have been taking a look at the publication record of Cooper ( via Google Scholar ), as this is one  of the main elements of contention.   The first listed publication (2015 with Lim in Security Studies ) could be labeled ‘significant’ or ‘influential’, I believe, and it should be attributed equally to Lim and Cooper.  Publications with Green and Hicks most likely took place while Cooper was a fellow at CSIS and should not be used to attribute notability to Cooper’s publication record.  The publication with Yarhi-Milo (2016 in International Security ) should, in my opinion, be largely attributed to Yarhi-Milo as first author and a senior scientist.   Below these in the list one gets into teens of citations rather than 100 or more, and none really standout as particularly impactful at casual glance.   With respect to those where Cooper is first or only author: with Poling, 2019 Foreign Policy , the citation pattern suggest this is a time-bound article with limited long term significance with Shearer, 2017 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , the citation pattern is indicative of continuing interest, but the number of citations is low.  2018 Center for Strategic and International Studies , this is a CSIS report and likely only internally peer reviewed before publication.  ...and so on.   My thinking is that Cooper is too early in his career to have become ‘notable’ in the sense we use here.  --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: More discussion as to whether this individual passes WP:NPROF 's subject-specific criteria would be helpful in achieving a consensus here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per this diff and presented by user Ceyockey.  Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 15:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Cooper probably passes PROF (several articles having GS cites > 100, h = 18), but he is clearly in the analyst/policy field, which is somewhat outside the academic world that PROF covers.  What I think has been missed here is that there are several WP articles that have non-trivial reference (i.e. links) to this page.  The article was also created by an editor who seems to be expert in the spheres of policy/diplomacy and who has created numerous BIOs of people in this area.  In this sense, the subject is clearly notable.  128.252.210.1 ( talk ) 18:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist in lieu of closing this as "No consensus".  As one editor stated, this is borderline, with different editors assessing PROF contributions differently so we need to move the needle one way or the other.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I don't believe this person is significant enough to have an article EncyclopediaEditorXIV ( talk ) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What are your reasons?  See the note on your talk page by Liz.  Xxanthippe ( talk ) 03:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC) .  [ reply ] Comment .  The delete ! votes further up are heavily focused on evaluation per PROF, but, as I said above, foreign policy and/or govt/ngo analysts do not fit neatly under this heading.  Much of their work is not circulated publicly like academic work, so tends not to have the same citation statistics, and may even be classified in certain instances.  Most of these folks would not be notable under PROF, though Cooper arguably is.  Here, I think further weight should be put on the article creator's record as an expert in this area, the high-level positions this person has held at DoD etal, and the fact that in several other WP articles in this space refer to him by name.  128.252.154.1 ( talk ) 18:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] PS .  I am 128.252.210.1 above.  128.252.154.1 ( talk ) 18:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think this is an interesting policy question.  We have policies for WP:ANYBIO , which requires evidence that the person has "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field".  It isn't clear to me how we would determine that.  Assuming that we don't look at this as a WP:NPROF then we have WP:AUTHOR .  That has "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" and then "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique...".  Unfortunately it doesn't say how we determine that the person has had the requisite impact on their field.  One way is to look for citations, another would be awards.  The only other way to determine this, AFAIK, would be if there are articles about the person in reliable sources that make this case.  With this person, what evidence do we have to make this determination?  Lamona ( talk ) 03:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as someone who can make a prima facie claim to being regarded as an important figure and/or has published impactful publications.  Also it's good the article doesn't suffer too badly from hype language.   Trying to measure impact by citation count, asking whether co-publications count the same, etc., runs the risk of driving the discussion into a kind of pseudo-empiricism that masks the larger question of whether he has enough notable real-world activity that the encyclopedia benefits from having verifiable information about him.  I'd rather this close as keep than no consensus, as NC tends to invite do-overs and the way forward will be no more clear nxzt time (unless he gets a named chair or something) Oblivy ( talk ) 01:51, 4 July 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus