Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel J. Mitchell

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Mitchell

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

Article is very poorly referenced. Subject is not notable. Article was written by an intern working for the subject, as claimed here Camjackson (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the banner about poor references has been there for more than three years, so it is unlikely to improve. Camjackson (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sympathetic to underlying issues, but it appears "Dan Mitchell" (as he goes by) is widely quoted in mainstream media in his capacity as an Economics expert. Per WP:PROF #7 "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." Multiple reliable television sources seen here. Often quoted in the Washington Post.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10], WSJ MarketWatch [11][12]. Wall Street Journal.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] New York Times.[25][26][27][28] He testified to a joint committee of the US Congress.[29] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree there are clearly underlying issues that need rapidly addressed however notability isn't questionable in fact seems very strong.Blethering Scot 22:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Green Cardamom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2013 (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.