Talk:Tobias Adrian

AfC comments

3

The FAZ and Economista articles and Goethe-Universitaet bio meet WP:SIGCOV criteria. Independent of media coverage, the subject is a notable WP:ACADEMIC. I have included under Selected Works his articles with more than 1,000 citations. Hanjaf1 (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Hanjaf1,

The FAZ and Economista articles and Goethe-Universitaet bio? For convenience, could you link them here please? Two or three sources are all that are needed to demonstrate notability, and they are lost in the many non-independent sources also used.

Notable per WP:ACADEMIC? Can you please quote the specific section of ACADEMIC that you are referring to? SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Certainly --

• GmbH, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (November 29, 2016). "Tobias Adrian: Ein Deutsch-Amerikaner wird neuer IWF-Finanzmarktchef" [A German-American becomes the new head of financial markets at the IMF] (in German). Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Retrieved July 17, 2021.
• "Tobias Adrian sustituirá a José Viñals en el FMI" [Tobias Adrian will replace José Viñals at the IMF]. el Economista. November 26, 2016. Retrieved July 17, 2021.
• "Dr. Tobias Adrian". Goethe-Universität (in German). Retrieved July 17, 2021.

WP:ACADEMIC criterion 1, the person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources (Many highly cited academic articles, per Google Scholar) and criterion 7, the person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity (impact on US economy/policy at the Fed, global economy at the IMF.)

Google Scholar. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=KAit8lUAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

2

I do not see sources that are independent of the subject that comment on the subject.

For demonstrating notability, sources from his employer (IMF), or sources that are authored by him, do not count. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

1

I've been corresponding with the draft author. This should definitely get approved eventually. I'm asking him to fix a few things where the article's statements aren't completely supported by the sources. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I just accepted. It is definitely good enough to get out of AfC. Fixing things is easier in mainspace, please continue. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Tobias’ publications are non third party publications.

Adrian has published extensively on the topic of market liquidity, including policy effects and its procyclical behavior. He has also written on the importance of the shadow banking system in capital markets, and its prominent role in the development of the financial crisis of 2007–2008.

This is a prosified list of selection publications. Is there any independent coverage of these publications? Who says that it is extensive? What impact have the publications had? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

With respect, those are primary sources, so they are covered by the other tag that you put on the page. Hanjaf1 (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hanjaf1, sure. They can be called both primary and first person sources, the overlap is large. My point is that what is lacking is comment on the impact of these publications. Are there any publications that explicitly refer to these publications?

Tobias has written on the importance of the shadow banking system, but does Tobias' writing on the importance of the shadow banking system have any importance? Has anyone said or done anything different as a result of Tobias' writings? SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that IMF economist Tobias Adrian originated one of the first ways to measure the risk that the financial system could collapse? https://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.20120555
  • ALT1:... that digital currencies could transform the international banking system, according to IMF economist Tobias Adrian? https://www.reuters.com/business/bis-imf-call-global-coordination-digital-cbank-currencies-2021-07-09/
  • ALT2:... that the New York Fed publishes a monthly recession indicator derived from work on the yield curve by economist Tobias Adrian?

• Reviewed: Ni Yulan

Created by Hanjaf1 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC).

• Comment I don't think the first or third hooks are appropriate. For 1: it is a primary source. We need a secondary source to say that Covar is "one of the first ways to measure the risk that the financial system could collapse". For 3: The source does not say that the monthly recession indicator is derived from Adrian's work. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• For the first hook, perhaps this is preferable: Hanjaf1 (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• ALT3: ... that IMF economist Tobias Adrian helped devise CoVaR, a method used to stress test banks after the great recession? https://www.economist.com/special-report/2009/05/16/the-revolution-within

That's much better than ALT1 about digital currencies, which is essentially "OPINION... according to person," and which I strongly oppose. DS (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article is long, was new and is well sourced. It used to have a primary sources tag but it looks like the sources have been fixed. I removed the tag since the only primary source is an interview (and it's properly used). Assuming good faith on a paywalled source. I agree with the above commenters that ALT3 is the best one. Striking the others for not being neutral or well sourced. The qpq isn't done yet since the nominator/reviewer still has to respond there. Once qpq is provided, I'll approve ALT3. Scratch that, qpq isn't necessary since this is a first time dyk nomination. (@Hanjaf1: it would be really cool if you could finish the review though :p) BuySomeApples (talk) 04:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P7