| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled edit
The article was now changes so as to not constitute a copyright violation.
User Weber
Notability edit
I do not agree with the argument stated here that having some articles with 100+ citations demonstrates "significant impact in their scholarly discipline." This argument fails the "Average Professor Test" since most professors have articles with as many citations. But maybe I'm wrong. His Google Scholar h-index is 27. I guess that's pretty good. Still, I don't agree with the idea that the "top 5%" of economists all belong on Wikipedia. That's thousands of economists. -Hugetim (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)