Talk:Adam B. Lerner

Notability

Lerner meets the criteria and requirements from WP:PROF guideline, at least per 3., 6., 7. and 8. Guideline in a nutshell description also notes that "(m)any scientists, researchers, philosophers, and other scholars ("academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." However, I agree, it is always shaky business to write and keep an article without strong secondary sources to prove a notability for young scholars because it is hard to find any, but this person has passed the test, even if only barely. After all, he serves as the Deputy Director of Royal Holloway's Centre for International Security, and served as a public scholar of the American Political Science Association, Cambridge Trust Scholar, and Henry Luce Scholar (3. and 6.); he was writer for number of influential international magazines (7.); and he was editor-in-chief of the Cambridge Review of International Affairs, which is pretty known and important scientific journal. Thing is, we will have problem finding secondary sources for such a young scholar, and article depends on two academic homepages and his own webpage, which is a problem as well, but I am convinced that his BIO is relevant and has passed WP:PROF. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Saying he is "such a young scholar" suggests it may be WP:TOOSOON for an article. It has not yet been demonstrated how WP:NPROF is met: criteria #3 refers to "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or associations" - where is it demonstrated that the American Political Science Association, Cambridge Trust, or Henry Luce, meet this? And criteria #6 is "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity": writing for a few "international magazines" does not meet this, particularly if there is no sourcing other than his own website to verify this. That leaves criteria #8 that he has been "chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal". Again, his own website claims he was Editor-in-Chief of the Cambridge Review of International Affairs, but there is no independent sourcing provided and he is not listed here. There would also need to be verification that the journal itself is "major" and "well-established". So there is still work to be done and I will restore the notability tag until notability has actually been demonstrated. Melcous (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Team which edits the Cambridge Review of International Affairs rotates usually on semester basis. He was journal's Book Review Editor in 2017, Editor-in-Chief on at least two occasions, in 2019 and/or 2020, unless he is a faker with a fake credentials and CV, and Google Scholar is tricked into listing him and a number of times he was cited by other experts. But never mind, I am assured he meets our guideline on article creation if only barely, and I also think you are not entirely wrong to make all this formal challenging. If nobody else comes across this BIO to improve its sourcing, maybe article won't be able to withstand pressure of your challenges and will eventually be deleted, I don't know. Where your stance sticks out and becomes truly bizarre is in your reply on Gazimestan Speech, with both, your conflation of WP:Notability in relation to Lerner's article creation with Lerner usage as a source in other articles, and the way you are questioning his expertise. It is most bizarre piece of argument according to which he is not "independent" nor secondary because prose includes quotations from his research paper. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)