Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:13, 21 May 2013

Jesús Huerta de Soto

Jesús Huerta de Soto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Nominated for deletion because he is a non-notable academic. Does not meet any of the eight criteria under WP:PROF (I ask that everyone please check those out before opining). Reasonable number of publications on Google scholar, but not nearly sufficient to be a notable academic, especially since a great many of them come from ideologically driven (i.e. Mises Institute/anarcho-capitalist-related) publications that don't meet scholarly muster. Zero hits on the more academically rigorous JSTOR. Steeletrap (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep – per OP, has a "reasonable number of publications". What is reasonable enough? In fact Scholar comes up with 653, which includes 155 citations by others. Article says de Soto is a member of the Mont Pelerin Society, which meets criteria # 3 in PROF. With the reference to LvMI, perhaps WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a factor. Consider, per the WorldCat listing for de Soto, he has 44 works published in numerous languages. They are published by Union Editorial, Editorial San Martin, E. Elgar, Hayek Inst (Wien), Fundacio Concordia, ASPI (Czech), Fijprr (Warszawa), l'Harmattan (Paris), Instutit Charles Coquelin, and more. (Only 4 are listed as LvMI Alabama or Warsaw.) At the very least, this article which originated in the Spanish WP, has WP:POTENTIAL. – S. Rich (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment Getting a bazillion hits on google scholar is relatively meaningless, imo, since GS does not distinguish between peer-reviewed journals and crackpot ideological stuff. Scientologist intellectuals, both notable and non-notable, get tons of hits for personal publications or publications in Scientology "journals" on GS. Zero citations on JSTOR is more instructive. I ask you to show me a criterion under WP:Prof he meets. I reject out of hand your claim that membership in the MP Society meets criterion 3. According to that criterion, the society has to be both "highly selective and prestigious", akin to the National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society. MP Society has had many eminent libertarian economists (e.g., Milton Friedman) join it, but so has the Libertarian Party. Like the LP, there is no evidence that MPS's membership standards are "highly selective", and prestigious is also a reach. (hence the fact that dozens of people listed as founding MPS members or current MPS board members on the MPS Misplaced Pages entry do not have Misplaced Pages pages) Steeletrap (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment – 10 of 15 the MPS Board of Director (2008/10) have WP articles; 28 of 42 Founding participants have WP articles; 21 of the 27 Presidents have WP articles; there are a few Nobel winners as past members. – S. Rich (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment Thank you for helping to prove my point, which is that membership in MP is not sufficient for academic notability. Steeletrap (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment The Mount Pelerin society is a group of ideological, not academic, cohorts. SPECIFICO talk 23:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: Like many academic articles on Misplaced Pages, it needs beefing up but we've got a week to improve it with the many refs out there, which I've already started collecting. If people are willing to do the work. I'll start by listing the sources I collect for people to review and adding more important ones immediately. FYI. Finally figured out how to translate his Personal website (it has frames so have to copy and paste the many CV and article pages into Google translate; just starting now). So obviously there will be excellent info there and leads to material that may or may not be available elsewhere. Obviously, secondary sources also have to be used, but at least it gives us an overview as to his being a "real academic". :-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 18:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. For me this consult is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Huerta de Soto published many book in many languages, a recognized schoolar invited to make conferences about his books in many countries. He isn't a "mainstream schoolar" (whatever it means), but that isn't a causal of irrelevance. Steeltrap suggest to wait that Empiricist Economics accept him in a debate, he is confused about What Misplaced Pages is, Misplaced Pages is neutral, only describes if a person is relevant, not if his relevance is "objective" or "scientific", a matter of discussions for another spaces. --Sageo (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

For show the impact of Huerta de Soto, this exposition in UK Parliament is based in Huerta de Soto financial theories. Conference of the EFD Group of European Parliament where professor Bagus exposed Huerta de Soto financial theories. And Huerta de Soto himself in London School of Economics. --Sageo (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sageo, please review the WP criteria for a notable academic

Comment – as his books are largely published by non-English sources, this is a case where the Anglo-American-centric of WP comes in. – S. Rich (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Srich,Please cite the specific non-English significant peer-reviewed academic journals which have published the work of Soto and explain why these are sufficient to establish him as a notable academic, with reference to which of the WP criteria Soto fulfills. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 23:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply – I'll post further comments on the article talk page, which is a better forum to discuss article improvement. But to expand & revise my remarks: WP:GNG will apply even if PROFESSOR does not. In this regard, de Soto seems to qualify. There are non-English sources out there, which may make it more difficulat to expand the article. But we can see that he's in some of the other non-English WP editions. (Do I read correctly, SPECIFICO, that you think the article should be deleted?) – S. Rich (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Mentioned by a commenter on Krugman in the NYT, and Krugman is a noted economist as well. . World's foremost economist? No. But someone a reader might well expect to find information about in an encyclopedia, which is what the notability guidelines boil down to. Collect (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment Krugman does not mention de Soto in the piece you cite; an anonymous commentator on his blog does. Please strike your false statement. Steeletrap (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Reading the content of a paywalled site sometimes has that result occasionally - but accusing me of a "false statement" is not called for. Allow for paywall problems first ... the fact remains that a peron using this encyclopedia may actually view an article as being of interest. With about 1300+ page views per month, this is an article which is actually viewed. Collect (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment You're right. I should have chosen more neutral phrasing ("incorrect statement" or "mistake"). I am getting frustrated that numerous people here are making incorrect or unsupported statements to justify de Soto, but should not have taken that out on you. Steeletrap (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep The relevant guideline is WP:PROF or WP:GNG, other arguments (like Krugman has mentioned him) are beside the point. I do not believe that he passes WP:GNG. However, as a chaired professor at a large public university, I believe he passes #5 of WP:PROF. 5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon). LK (talk) 05:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep De Soto meets 7 and 9, as an academic who is notable outside academia. TFD (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates