Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelino Viceisza

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 redirect to National Economic Association. Viable ATD and his only weak claim to notability is with regards to his role here. Should that change in the future, it could be spun back out. Star Mississippi 14:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angelino Viceisza

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Searches did not turn up enough to meet WP:GNG. He has three publications with borderline citation counts, but he is the co-author on them. With an h-Index of 11, not seeing he currently meets WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I started this article because the subject will become president of the National Economic Association on February 1, 2023. Thus, before the end of the AfD period, the subject will fit criteria #6 of WP:NACADEMIC. Two years ago, I started a similar page for Nina Banks when she assumed the presidency of this same organization, and within a week the New York Times wrote a lengthy profile of her: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/business/black-women-economists-nina-banks.html I believe the same thing will happen with this subject. EAWH (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best if we waited until after that happened, anything can happen between now and then and they might not ascend to the position. As it stands now, not notable. TOOSOON, but for one day, I suppose it can pass. Keep Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to this tweet, the subject is now President of the NEA. --EAWH (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is the sourcing, it's all non-reliable/non-neutral. The NEA website isn't really a neutral source; it would be best if this event was covered in an un-related piece of media. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not sure that being president of that organization is automatic grounds for notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Publications in Economics journals often order authors alphabetically, and the subject's last name begins with V. Do not try to assess the subject's contributions to his published articles by the fact that his name is listed last.EAWH (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The NEA appears to have a narrower scope and emphasis on advocacy, so would likely not be considered a major academic organization of the type ordained by C6 (e.g. the AEA, which is much broader, publishes a prestigious journal, and has a distinguished fellowship recognized as highly selective). JoelleJay (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To add: NEA has only 2000 members, including undergraduates; this is around 10x fewer than AEA. I don't think it can be called "major". JoelleJay (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. So far, the only person arguing to keep it is the page creator. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 17:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the only person arguing to Keep this papge; Oaktree b also said the page was worth Keeping.--EAWH (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Keep. I agree that the president of the NEA association/group is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is every president of every learned national society of 2000+ members inherently notable (that would be tens of thousands of people...)? What distinction do you make between "minor" and "major" academic societies? JoelleJay (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:NACADEMIC #3 ("The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).") for his membership in the National Bureau of Economic Research, which is selective, as per #3. That site says: "NBER affiliates are selected through a rigorous and competitive process that begins with a call for nominations each February." [1] Lamona (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I'm not an economist, but the NBER seems to be a major organization, as per its list of members who won Nobels. Lamona (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes he does satisfy WP:NACADEMIC #3. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With due respect to users above, but NBER is not nearly as prestigious or "highly selective" as the examples in WP:NACADEMIC #3, so most keep votes appear to be based on a misreading. Even more so as being a research associate of NBER is very far from being an elected member of an academic society. Also low citation count and low h-index, so meets no criteria of WP:NACADEMIC. Jeppiz (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I think it's a bit WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this associate professor, although it looks likely that he will eventually be notable. Citation levels are respectable in what I believe to be a mid-to-high citation field, but I think it's short of WP:NPROF C1. Being a research associate at a think tank like NBER is not a pass of WP:NPROF C3, and I don't think this contributes much to notability. I don't think the NEA is a major academic society in the sense of WP:NPROF C6, although I do think this may contribute some to notability. If the New York Times profiles him, then this would surely change the situation; until they do, WP:CRYSTAL applies. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect proposed by TJMSmith also looks like a reasonable alternative to deletion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. JoelleJay (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the discussions above. JoelleJay (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Economic Association: per WP:ATD-R. This would allow for the article to be restored and expanded should there be a change in the subject's notability. TJMSmith (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would have no issue with redirecting the article to the organization.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a BLP with zero direct detailing in reliable sources independent of the subject. Every source so far applied and presented is connected in some way. That the last org president was later covered in a NYT article is irrelevant to this subject. NACADEMIC#3 is inapplicable because there are no independent sources presented which make this claim. I'm okay with redirecting as suggested by TJMSmith. BusterD (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2023 (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.