Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jörg Guido Hülsmann


 * 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   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 03:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Jörg Guido Hülsmann

 * - (|View AfD) (View log)

AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable academic, fails to meet any of the 8 criteria in WP:PROF and without the "outside" attention needed to make the WP:GNG cut. Difficult to turn up via Google Scholar publications in journals not published by the Mises Institute (keep WP:UNDUE in mind) or other ideological organizations. Closest thing to "notability" is being a faculty member at the University of Angers.


 * Delete- opinion of nominator Bkalafut (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - contrary to the impression given by Bkalafut's report, Hulsmann has been published in numerous non-LvMI affiliated publications, including the American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Acton Institute's Journal of Markets and Morality, the French financial newspaper La Tribune, Jesús Huerta de Soto's journal Procesos de Mercado, and the Swiss newspaper Le Temps. I don't see how there can be an undue weight problem here since the question is about Hulsmann's notability and whether the encyclopedia should have an article about him, not whether his criticisms of other economists should be given a lot of play in other articles. DickClarkMises (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * According to a cursory Google Scholar search, Hulsmann has also been cited in scholarly articles by folks including Mark Thornton, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Jesus Huerta de Soto, Walter Block, Bryan Caplan, George Selgin, Lawrence H. White, and Frank van Dun. DickClarkMises (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply - The publication record outside Mises is thin and 3rd-party references few. The criteria of WP:PROF aren't satisfied.  WP:UNDUE comes up as in previous discussions: to count even a mediocre academic--one who wouldn't be notable following the criteria as applied to mainstream econ profs--in the "Austrian" holdout section as notable simply because he's notable to the handful of others in that faction is to give undue weight on Wikipedia to these modern-day "Austrians."  White, Boettke, and Long come to mind immediately as counterexamples of Austrians with clear influence elsewhere. Bkalafut (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Clearly does not qualify under WP:GNG, since there are zero secondary sources about Hülsmann. Listing of books are articles written by Hülsmann do not satisfy WP:GNG.  Separately, I don't think that the articles and books written by Hülsmann are noteworthy enough to satisfy WP:PROF.  Most of the provided books and articles are published by niche Austrian School Economics think tanks (either Mises or the "Acton Institute").  The rest of the works by Hülsmann appear to be either minor articles or op-eds.  Overall, the works are not significant enough to make the author of them satisfy WP:PROF;  the total published material is about what one would expect from almost any economics adjunct.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * GA, could you offer some source for the assertion that the Acton Institute is an "Austrian" organization? I've never heard this before, and I've read a good bit about them. DickClarkMises (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mean Austrian, as in Hans and Franz. I mean Austrian as in heterodox "free market economics" thought.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * GA, I understand that you didn't mean the nationality. But "Austrian School" is far more specific than "free market," because it implies adherence to the subjective theory of value, a pure time preference theory of interest, and so on. It isn't really correct to use the two terms interchangeably. DickClarkMises (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Either way, the substance of my comment stands: being published by niche free market think tanks doesn't indicate notability, whereas being published by a more prominent think tank, like the RAND Corporation, would indicate notability.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that being published by numerous think tanks can confer notability. One doesn't have to be in the mainstream to be notable. DickClarkMises (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in WP:PROF about being published by private think tanks; as I read it, publications in private think tanks don't confer notability for an academic. LK (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Could there be a clear and open ruling from WP editors over whether the LvMI is a legitimate forum that should be taken into account when assessing WP:GNG. This is crucial in this case, given the focus of JGH's publication via the LvMI. If it's legitimate, then he passes via WP:GNG. If not, then he may be vulnerable given the very narrow criteria within WP:PROF.  If I could start this debtate: I see no reason why this cannot be considered a legitimate reference source, like any other outlet for academic work. It appears to confer degrees and although not formally accredited appears very successful in attracting paying students and wide attention through its publications and website. - PtAuAg (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Remark: If Clark (interpreted as charitably as possible, that is, interpreted as not supporting a special weaker standard for "Austrian" types) is right and Hulsmann does satisfy WP:PROF as ordinarily applied the article must be changed to reflect this, with links to his supposed high-impact papers and to third-party sources where he is discussed, etc. As written the page doesn't convey notability at all.  Bkalafut (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * B: I have never argued for a weaker standard for anyone. With pejoratives like "crank" being thrown around, I do doubt the neutrality of other participants here, but I am trying to assume good faith. I believe Hulsmann is notable because he has been substantially covered in multiple, independent reliable sources both scholarly and popular. He has a number of scholarly works that have been cited by others notable in his area of notability. I fear that the discussion here is limited to his reception in the English-speaking world. The fact that the article is currently not as thorough as it ought to be is not a good reason to delete. Here are some more sources that arguably confer notability: coverage by a German/Polish financial/business newspaper Manager Magazin; schedule for conference of Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences for which he was asked to serve as commentator on Joseph Stiglitz's remarks ; schedule for a Catholic scholars conference at Papal University Heiligenkreuz ; a description of Hulsmann as a reputable scholar in promotional materials from Papal University Heiligenkreuz's press ; an interview on Radio France in which he was credited as being one of the relatively few economists who was prescient about the present economic crisis ; substantial coverage in Der Standard, a leading newspaper in Austria ; substantial coverage in Süddeutsche Zeitung, a major German newspaper . Again, I would stress that the article's incompleteness is not good cause for deletion--the subject's notability should be examined on the basis of what sources exist from which to write the encyclopedia article, not the quality of the current article. DickClarkMises (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The relevant question is, does Hülsmann satisfy any of the categories of WP:PROF? IMO, his main claim is by Criterion 1, as he doesn't satisfy any of the other categories. C1 is usually shown by demonstrating extensive citation by other academics in peer reviewed journals. According to Scopus, Hülsmann has been cited by 5 other people, and has a h Index of 2. For comparison, I have a h Index of 3, and I am a thoroughly non-notable academic. --LK (talk) 04:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * LK: I think Scopus must only be counting recent publications or something. A general query using Harzing's Publish or Perish shows an h-index of 9 and a g-index of 17:

Papers:	49	Cites/paper:	6.94	h-index:	9	AWCR:	32.33 Citations:	340	Cites/author:	309.17	g-index:	17	AW-index:	5.69 Years:	15	Papers/author:	44.40	hc-index:	7	AWCRpA:	29.91 Cites/year:	22.67	Authors/paper:	1.33	hI-index:	7.36	e-index:	12.96 hI,norm:	9	hm-index:	8.33
 * Does that change your opinion? DickClarkMises (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Different databases will yield different h indexes. Scopus only counts articles in peer-reviewed journals from 1995 to 2010. Harzing's Publish or Perish is not a standard index to use. Since it gives a higher count, it likely includes articles in non--peer reviewed articles, magazines, etc. Authors can only be compared to each other by using the same h index, and only in comparable fields. The point is, a h index of 2 on Scopus is not notable, and his h index of 9 using google search also shows that he is not notable per WP:PROF. See here for a discussion of this issue. LK (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Harzing's Publish or Perish is not a standard index to use. Since it gives a higher count, it likely includes articles in non--peer reviewed articles, magazines, etc. Authors can only be compared to each other by using the same h index, and only in comparable fields." As stated multiple times already, JGH is an ethicist and literary writer, having written a biography of Ludwig von Mises.  You cannot legitimately use Scopus (that only would count cites in mainstream economics journals) in these circumstances.  You are not comparing apples with apples.  You are comparing a literary ethicist with mainstream academic economists publishing papers on econometric modelling.  That is, patently, a misleading and distorting comparison.  Harzing's measure would be much more appropriate as it would be relevant for WP:GNG. What Scopus h index does Robert Skidelsky possess, by the way? Scopus requires subscription access so I can't find out.  I'd be interested, given the debate below. - PtAuAg (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  —Dewritech (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know enough about economics to make a judgment here. But I notice that he goes by "Guido" and in the course of searching using just that first name I found this. Is that a good 3rd-party appraisal of his work that someone who does know the field could use to improve the article, and/or does that help demonstrate notability? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply That's an introduction written by a member of the Mises Institute to a collection published by the Mises Institute. This is the "echo chamber" effect.  It's one notch above self-promotion. Notability to a handful of fellow think-tankers is not academic notability.Guraguragura! (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep In addition to the comments made by DCM, I make the following points: (1) Does an academic only become notable because an academic community refers to his work? Murray Rothbard is rarely if ever used as a ref in "mainstream" economic journals but is very notable because of his non-economic work.  Similarly, JGH traverses areas that are simply not covered by the mainstream economics profession. For example his Ethics of Money Production is really about "ethics", not economics as such.  So even though it's a notable publication in the field of ethics, it's not going to be ref'd in economics journals. The lack of cites in mainstream academic journals seems a very self-serving justification for deletion (especially if any mainstream academic is advocating deletion).  It's like a group of climate scientists arguing that Pres Bush's entry should be deleted because he was a climate change sceptic and wasn't published in any science journals on climate change.  JGH writes extensively on non-economic matters. (2) Even in the field of economics he is, arguably, notable.  To say publication in LvMI's website is an "echo chamber" is disingenuous. It's a well-known website, widely read - more popular than any other economics-focused website I am aware of.  It's much more popular that the websites for most economic journals (which generally get minscule hits and have very few subscribers).  It's self-evident that a website slanted towards JGH's political views will publish him.  JGH is not going to be published in the NYTimes or mainsteam economics journals for obvious reasons.  They hate the gold standard and are openly opposed to any discussion of it.  To then use this as a basis for deletion is really saying the whole political orientation is not legitimate and therefore anything published through these channels is ipso facto to be ignored.  The underlying question is, therefore, whether the LvMI website is itself a "legitimate" outlet for economic research.  That decision has already been made on WP.  It is.  There are literally hundreds of refs using research from the LvMI, including (of course) many on the Austrian School page.  These cannot be ignored as an echo chamber.  (3) JGH is "notable" for non-economic reasons because he is a notable biographer of LvM.  Similarly, Robert Skidelsky, biographer of John Maynard Keynes has a large entry on WP not because he is an economist but because he is a biographer.  Why should JGH be penalized simply because of the breadth of his interests and the range of his writings?  He may not have enough "depth" of citations within the (narrow?) mainstream economics circle, but widen the viewing lense beyond academic economists and, like Skidelsky, this guy (biographer, ethicist, economist) is definitely notable enough to have a WP entry.  -  PtAuAg (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC) — PtAuAg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic..
 * Note PtAuAg may be a single-purpose account Bkalafut (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note PtAuAg may be a sockpuppet of User:Karmaisking, per WP:DUCK. LK (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply Conspiracy theories about being unfairly shut out of journals are no substitute for WP:GNG and WP:UNDUE. Peculiarly Austrian arguments for the gold standard get the attention they do because they are the economic equivalent of the phlogiston theory of heat.  Selgin and White, both self-identifying "Austrians", get outside attention and publish in the mainstream because they're working in the present and not the past--now you have at least two counterexamples to your silly gold-buggery conspiracy theory of usual WP:PROF standards for academics being unfair because Hulsmann is shut out for no good reason.  Comparison to Skidelsky is off the mark (see Academic38's comments below), and reviewing WP standards for notability of authors would serve you well.  Notable book doesn't automatically mean notable author, and it's not at all clear that Hulsmann's biography of Mises is notable.  If it is, write that article and redirect Hulsmann to that page. Bkalafut (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Further Reply Rothbard very clearly satisfies WP:GNG in many ways. See e.g. Radicals for Capitalism just to get started.  Like it or not, his status as the founder of the reactionary/doctrinaire "Austrian" economics now represented at the Mises Institute might get him in under WP:PROF.  It's worth bearing in mind, as well, that his approach to "anarcho-capitalism" was significant even if he made zero contribution to economics, too.  Gets him cited all over the place, including (most notably) in Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia.  Not that we're discussing Rothbard here, but just as with Skidelsky it's important to understand the difference.Bkalafut (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to the Further Reply You're completely missing the point. I did not and am not arguing that JGH is EQUAL in notability to Rothbard or Skidelsky.  I'm arguing that he is SUFFICIENTLY ANALOGOUS to allow his entry to be kept in.  His entry doesn't need to be 15 pages long, like Keynes or Skidelsky.  But it does deserve to exist and be about half a page (which is it now).  Why you think I have to prove JGH is equally as notable as Rothbard or Skidelsky is beyond me.  When you can have Michael Rowbotham included as monetary reformer (which was discussed and resolved 2 years ago!) when MR doesn't have ANY qualifications and has written 2 books on monetary reform, but delete JGH's entry defies logic and shows a compleletely inconsistent application of principle.  I'm not suggesting MRowbotham should be deleted by the way.  I'm simply arguing JGH should be left in. He is considered by some Austrians to be the most prominent and eloquent defender of sound money in the world today.  Perhaps that's why Bkfut wants him terminated. - PtAuAg (talk) 09:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC) — PtAuAg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Now the conspiracy theory extends all the way to me! Bkalafut (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The comparison with Skidelsky is strained. Skidelsky was a professor at a major British university, Warwick, as well as a Fellow of the British Academy. The latter alone would qualify Skidelsky according to WP:PROF. Where do philosophers cite Hülsmann's ethics work? And his Mises biography is predictably published by the Mises Institute. I don't see how Hülsmann meets WP:PROF and he obviously doesn't meet WP:GNG. Academic38 (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply - How "big" is Warwick compared to Angers? Aren't we splitting hairs here?  Both are academics who are notable because they wrote biographies.  It is patently ludicrous to suggest that an article on a biography of LvM is notable (as Bkfut seems to suggest above) but the biographer (who has also written extensively in other areas) is not notable.  I know we are to assume Bkalafut is acting in good faith, but his reasoning is inconsistent and frankly he is the one straining credibility.  He is pre-supposing support of the gold standard is the equivalent of the phlogiston theory of fire (not heat, by the way).  That prejudice colors his whole view.  The debate about the gold standard is the very issue in dispute.  You cannot delete a notable supporter of the gold standard merely because of his support of the gold standard and his publication in gold standard-supporting media outlets.  That is the equivalent of climate change scientists calling for the deletion of every single scientist who is a noted climate change skeptic MERELY BECAUSE questioning climate change is "the equivalent of the phlogiston theory of fire".  But that is the very issue in dispute.  The reasoning necessarily gets to the point of censoring all non-climate change supporting views.  It's a transparently self-serving censorship tactic by those who have already staked out a position in the debate and want "non-serious" views (in their prejudiced opinion) deleted or censored.  The simple objective reality (regardless of your views on the gold standard) is that (1) JGH has written the most detailed and extensive biography of LvM ever written (2) Is an ethicist as well as an economist, having written on the ethics of money production (3) has been published in nonLvMI outlets (4) even if he hadn't been published in any other outlet than LvMI his writings and publications would, of themselves, be notable.  Stating that anything from LvMI is illegitimate is ridiculous.  I could argue equally that govt-financed university work should be discounted because they will always support their boss (the govt) and are therefore not reliable sources of information.  Both positions are ridiculous and easily slip into prejudiced simple-minded censorship. I could understand the concern if JGH was plastered all over Keynesian economics but this is a debate about his entry simply EXISTING on WP (not about weight).  I find the suggestion that his entry be deleted an insult to him and his notable work. - PtAuAg (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC) — PtAuAg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Reply If Hulsmann's work is notable, then document that in the article. Skidelsky was a Fellow of the British Academy, itself enough to get him in under WP:PROF.  Neither WP:PROF nor WP:GNG allow for all authors of all books or even all authors of notable books to be notable. Bkalafut (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Further Reply This has actually become a fascinating example of a much wider debate. Some "notable" commentators in the blogsphere and in the mainstream media are accusing academics of being unscientific "priesthoods" incestuously citing their own work and deliberately ignoring the real world to the detriment of their own usefulness and credibility.  The much bigger question in this context is: Who determines notability and why should notability be attached to academic publication at all?  Is undue weight being given to academic publication compared to other criteria of notability, such as web hits on blogs, or reference and discussion in the blogsphere?  If it is the case that the 'echo chamber' of academia is becoming a cesspit of incestuous cretins citing their own irrelevant meaningless work for their own greedy career enhancement (not a position I would take but apparently a position some writers are taking), then perhaps multiple citations in mainstream academic journals is a basis for deletion from WP, not inclusion. Who decides? And should the WP criteria on notability be adjusted to fit these new realities, especially in light of the failure of the predictive power of mainstream academic economists and the apparent "corruption" displayed within the academic arena of climate change science?  Just some food for thought.  This wider discussion should not influence the current determination on JGH but should be raised at the highest levels within WP given the apparently widespread discrediting of economics PhDs in particular (note again that this is certainly a position I do not take but apparently is a position some notable writers and commentators are taking).  - PtAuAg (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC) — PtAuAg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Reply Yes, the old "as long as one crank exists there should be no standards" argument. If you want to start your own wiki where up is down, right is left, and the paranoid fantasies of climate change deniers mean notable is non-notable, you may do so.  WP has well-established standards at WP:PROF and WP:GNG which suit its purpose as a general-interest encyclopedia.  Were you not a single-purpose account I'd suggest taking up your concern at either of those discussion pages.  We should not change the rules for JGH simply because one commenter feels strongly about him but not so strongly as to document his supposed notability by editing the article.Bkalafut (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to the Reply I'm sorry, but calling JGH a 'crank' is not NPOV and your comments should be discounted accordingly. As is clear from my explicit comments already made above, I did not advocate changing the existing standards for JGH.  To mischaracterize my comments is disingenuous when they are so clear.  I have addressed both WP:PROF and in particular WP:GNG and have not received a response.  Could you please respond to the substantive issues raised above and refrain from personalizing the issue, and calling this notable academic a 'crank'.  Please try to restain showing your obvious POV as it indicates your comments should be ignored and likely will be ignored. PtAuAg (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Per LK and Academic38. Arguements raised by PtAuAg are not persuasive, relying on emotion and pleas, not facts and policies. Ravensfire ( talk ) 08:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply No. I disagree.  WP:PROF states that a shorthand way of expressing the test is that the academic is more prolific or notable than the average academic.  JGH has published a biography of LvM. What academic has published a detailed, significant biography of a major figure in their field of work and is NOT included in WP?  JGH is notable because he has published the most notable biography of LvM and because he is the most significant academic advocating sound money in the world today.  In isolation each one would pass WP:PROF.  Together it is undeniable that WP:PROF is satisfied.
 * Note By the way, it is a lie that this is single purpose account. It is a lie that I only commented on this page.  I have made contributions elsewhere.  Anyone can check my contributions to confirm this.  - PtAuAg (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is true - you have posted to one other page, AFTER you posted that. A true sign of a well-rounded editor!  Ravensfire ( talk ) 14:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, this is not true. I have edited the talk page of FRB, moral hazard and this page.  I only contribute in the specific areas in which I have knowledge, and where I really feel I can make a difference.  I didn't realize modesty was punished on WP.  However regardless whether this modesty is punished on WP it is a fact that I have edited on other pages and this can be confirmed by anyone.  I maintain therefore that this allegation is a lie because it can be verified and yet the comment nevertheless has been made.  This cannot be done in good faith, given the ease with which the allegation can be discredited.PtAuAg (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete in the absence of evidence such as high citation counts for passing WP:PROF. Google news archive finds some pieces mentioning him, but many seem not to be independent and others mention him only briefly, so I am not convinced of a pass of WP:GNG either. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply This merely repeats Bkfut's comments above and does nothing whatsoever to progress the discussion. Please note that according to the prominent warning at the top of the page, this is not a majority vote and really only those with something new to contribute should contribute. PtAuAg (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) Please stop WP:FILIBUSTERing this AfD; it is not necessary to reply to every comment in disagreement with your opinion. (2) Pot, meet kettle. (3) I am not impressed by a single-purpose account trying to stifle discussion on this AfD. (4) Is there a reason you are repeatedly misspelling the nominator's name? (5) In fact my comment did add content to the discussion: it mentioned a specific reason (lack of citations) that I don't think he passes WP:PROF, it discussed a different potential source of notability not mentioned in the nomination statement (Google News archive), and it provided a specific reason (non-independence) why I am discounting the Google news archive hits. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) There are a number of 'Delete' contibutions on this page which I have not responded to, because I had nothing to say. (2) Not a substantive comment, kettle. (3) I have made multiple edits elsewhere, which, curiously were not welcomed (modesty is punished as are edits on other pages, strangely) (4) Yes, I am getting on in years and I'm a very poor speller and Bkfut's name is not easy to type (5) No, these issues have been raised above, not in exactly the same words, but the extensive discussion of the h index above encapsulates what you were referring to.PtAuAg (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep JGH is widely recognized as one of the top Austrian economists in the world, including on monetary theory; he is invited to speak all over the world, has been heavily cited within his area of scholarly discourse; has written the definitive biography of founding Austrian Ludwig von Mises. NSKinsella (Stephan Kinsella) (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What is your evidence for the "widely recognized" and "heavily cited"? Because when I look in Google scholar I see top citation counts under 50 and an h-index of 9, solid but unimpressive and not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF #1. Are you getting better numbers from a different citation database? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2010 (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.