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. While there is a lot of good discussion back and forth (so much so that we kept it open an extra two weeks and change, for some reason), I see only one editor who actually recommended deletion - the nominator. When looked at from that angle, consensus seems clear. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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,^{[citation needed]} 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia entry do not have Wikipedia pages) Steeletrap (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

CommentThe fact that his writings appear on the Mises Institute is not a sufficient reason for [User:Steeletrap] to dismiss him and request deletion. Amanski (talk

Response This comment imputes bad faith onto me, and I ask that it be crossed. It would be bigoted to regard it as "sufficient" to delete someone's WP entry because she or he is published on the Mises Institute, which has published people like F.A. Hayek or Rothbard who are clearly notable. My reasoning for wanting to delete de Soto is outlined above. Steeletrap (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response You said: "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". There is no need to impute bad faith when you reason in this manner. I added the bold btw. Many serious economists have published at the Mises Institute. Furthermore many of his books have been published by serious academic publishers. Amanski (talk

• Keep: Like many academic articles on Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

• 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 Wikipedia is, Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sageo, please review the WP criteria for a notable academic WP criteria here, and explain which of these Soto fulfills. The Youtube video you posted does not address Soto's notability as an academic economist and your assertion that it does so is WP:OR SPECIFICO talk 23:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It addresses his notability outside academia, which is rule # 7. So I think this comment is on the wrong track. Amanski (talk

Reply. Even if we ignore that encyclopedical relevance of intelectuals is not about been acepted by schoolar credentialism, Huerta de Soto have relevance in Academia of more than one country: Huerta de Soto's Honoris Causa Doctorate in Universidad Francisco Marroquin (Guatemala). There is also a seminar about Huerta de Soto thinking in the same university. --Sageo (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That "seminar" just a lecture by a junior academic of no particular distinction or publication record. SPECIFICO talk 00:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A list of books of the 'junior academic', Ravier, with ISBN info. --Sageo (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

• Keep Mentioned by a commenter on Krugman in the NYT, and Krugman is a noted economist as well. [1]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Comment You might be right if he does indeed hold such a chair. But I see no citation for this claim in the piece. Please provide one if you can. Steeletrap (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per ref'd material entered in the last 36 hours, he held a chair at his last university per this ref; he's a "full professor" at his current one per his website CV. Does that mean he has a "chair" in Spain currently? Yo no se! CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' According to the RS, de Soto recieved his "chair" right after graduate school, and also states in the RS that "All professors are civil servants, who hold their chairs for life". It's pretty clear that "chair" as de Soto (and perhaps many Spanish professors) is using the term is different than how we think of it (i.e. "endowed chair of econometrics at Pumpkin University). There appears to be no evidence whatsoever that de Soto holds a chair in the relevant sense at his current university. Steeletrap (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made the point on article talk page that national differences in the various academic procedures/terminology/credentialling Soto alludes to in the 1997 article might be mentioned in the article; but that some might consider it "off topic", and maybe it is if it means a lot of research into sources that don't discuss him.

Wikipedia might need a whole guidance section under Wikipedia:Notability (academics) on differing nations' standards. (See WP:Systemic bias.) And, of course, it might help if America academic critics actually looked at his CV before passing hasty judgement. Use copy and paste into translation software/search engines. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment TFD. I'm not following you on criteria 7 and 9. Soto, to my knowledge, does not have wide or frequent coverage outside of the Mises/Austrian circuit. As to 9, that appears to be for works of fiction, which some may think applies to Soto -- but not in a notable way. SPECIFICO talk 01:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jesus Huerta de Soto writings have been cited in several congressional hearings on monetary reform. See testimony from financial services House of US Rep.Amanski (talk

ReplyActually he was just used as a ref multiple times there; I did a search and could not find any such info. FYI. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Yes, that is what I said. As I link to, he is cited by Professor Jeffrey Herbener in his testimony in May 8th 2012 in a hearing held the by the Committee on Financial Services held by the US House of representatives. Amanski (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Amanski (talk[reply]

'fyi I don't know your level of familiarity with US Congressional hearings, but the list of witnesses is a Noah's Ark of experts, advocates, charlatans, and clowns. They are not vetted in any way and there's no significance to that role. SPECIFICO talk 14:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Jesus Huerta de Soto has received Doctor Emeritus of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, thus satisfying points 5 of WP:PROF [2]. They also specifically cite his important academic contributions to economic theory. And they also note that he has received "King Juan Carlos International Prize for Economics, Adam Smith Prize and Franz Kuechel Prize for Excellence in Economic Education." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanski (talk • contribs) 01:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• weak Keep The professorship by itself does not meet the standard of WP:PROF #5. It is not clear whether he meets #7, impact outside academe, and this will depend on whether you regard it sufficient to be significant within his particular tendency in economics--I do not think one could say he has made an impact on economics and applied economics in general. I cannot judge the journal he founded and edits--if it is a major journal he meets the criteria for notability, but it's in the Spanish language and there are very few US holdings. The most widely held of the books he has written, Socialism, economic calculation and entrepreneurship in in 450 libraries according to WorldCat, which is significant. The editorship of a major series of the collected works of a unquestionably major author might or might not be enough--many scholars have made their reputation from such editing. On balance, I think he meets WP:AUTHOR and is just over the line for WP:PROF. When I say "weak" keep or delete, as here ,it means I would regard the opposite opinion as also reasonable 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has been cited in congressional testimonies in the US House of Representatives by professors in economics, and in the legislative bodies of the United Kingdom. He has been awarded an honorary professorship by the highest university in economics and finance in Russia. That is both significance within academia and outside. It is not a rule that he is accepted by an anglo-american university. Furthermore "Socialism, economic calculation and entrepreneurship" is not editorship, but authorship as he has written every article in the book.Amanski (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Amanski (talk[reply]

• Keep I thought I might add some more points to eliminate this ridicolously biased and extremely typical case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He has contributed articles to books or published books with Presses Universitaires de France ( the largest French university publishing house), Lit Verlag (Major German publishing house), Ediciones Pirámide (Spanish University publisher) and Routledge (British and very respected publishing house). This can all be found in his publishing CV. I think this shows that the article should be kept and that User: Steeletrap nomination should be dismissed.Amanski (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Tim, what works written by Soto are published by PUF, Routledge, and Lit Verlag? Could you provide specifics? Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)
    • • Routledge was really easy to find [3] ... did it so easlily elide a twenty second search? Collect (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been in the bibliography for a while already. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 20:57, 10 June 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.