Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Pál Pelbart

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. — The Earwig (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pál Pelbart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails currently WP:NACADEMIC, given sources do only refer to him as a guest, no signs of professorship at the University in Brazil found CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A h-index of 23 is respectable for a low-citation field such as philosophy, plausibly meeting SCHOLAR#1. Furthermore, many of his top cited works (e.g. O tempo não-reconciliado: imagens de tempo em Deleuze cited by 524, Da clausura do fora ao fora da clausura cited by 367, filosofía de la deserción cited by 75) are books that given the amount of citations have been surely reviewed, so it is very likely he meets WP:NAUTHOR.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. per Eostrix, for this field the amount of citations is quite strong and he would pass WP:NPROF just on that and quite possibly WP:NAUTHOR on top of it. --hroest 21:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pass WP:NPROF. Sonofstar (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2021 (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.