Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Montero


 * 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. ansh 666 01:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Alfred Montero

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics). None of the criteria met. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 04:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. not yet notable.  DGG ( talk ) 10:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 12:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 12:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article was written 12 years ago and seems to be in need of an update. The subject is now holds a named professorship and their work on decentralisation in Latin America has been reasonably well cited for political science, both of which indicate a pass of WP:PROF. I also found several detailed reviews of his book, Brazil: Reversal of Fortune . –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Carleton College is not "a major institution of higher education and research". Being reasonably well cited or having detailed reviews of a book are not criteria. Those do not come close to satisfying criteria 1 or 7. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 14:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * These criteria are somewhat subjective I'll grant you, but Carleton College is a high-ranked liberal arts college with thousands of students. I would say the citation metrics are more marginal than a clear keep, but in my experience, in a low-citation field like poli sci, having several papers with more than 100 citations usually passes the threshold. Having 2+ reviews of a book is usually taken to pass WP:AUTHOR, which is a lower bar than WP:PROF. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you are stretching the criteria past the breaking point. Carleton has 2,000 students and is not a major institution, especially with regard to research. Schools like it focus on teaching, not research. There are thousands of profs with named chairs at small liberal arts colleges. Again, citation metrics are not a PROF criteria. As for AUTHOR, none of the criteria are anything close to having 2 reviews of a work. Can you point to some examples of professors with similar credentials passing AfD with either PROF or AUTHOR? - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 15:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Citation metrics are our usual way of assessing WP:PROF. Reviews satisfy point 3 of WP:AUTHOR. It's hard to think of examples off the top of my head, but some similar previous AfDs from recent logs include: Ernest R. House, Andrew Manis, Tom Paradise, Richard Padovan, and Lawrence A. Alexander.
 * It's not unusual to disagree on where exactly the bar is with these criteria. Like I said, there's a degree of subjectivity in them. Let's hear what other editors think in this case. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sounds good. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 18:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, mostly per WP:PROF. There are also a few published reviews of his other books   which together with the reviews for the newer book listed by Joe (which should be added to the article) are probably enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you think Carleton is a major institution of higher education and research? - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 23:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think our criteria should not be interpreted as stating that faculty at smaller colleges are automatically non-notable. Carleton is a well-known, high-quality liberal arts college with over 2000 students. That's very different from the junior colleges and tiny ingrown religious academies that clause was intended to filter out. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as WP:AUTHOR. Reviews provided by are sufficient for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.