Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignazio Ciufolini
- 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Ignazio Ciufolini
- Ignazio Ciufolini (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)
Does not appear to meet
]- Obvious keep, easily passes books} 17:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)]
- Note: This debate has been included in the talk to me 17:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)]
- Note: This debate has been included in the talk to me 17:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)]
- Comment H-index is more of a guideline than a sure-fire test of notability (WP:PROF#Citation metrics). —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)]
- Comment H-index is more of a guideline than a sure-fire test of notability (
- Keep I checked the WP:ACADEMIC. @Prof. Squirrel: As for the h-index, I agree that a low h-index is not a sure-fire test of non-notability, but I have never seen a case where somebody non-notable had a high h-index. --Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)]
- A pedantic interpolation. There have been a few cases where people in very large and well cited research groups have been found non-notable because they do not stand out from the crowd. But this is not one such case. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC).
- You're right, now that you mention it, I remember such a case. The subject had huge citation counts and a large h-index, but always was something like 15th author among 30, never first or last or even second (must have been high-energy physics or something like that). But that's more like the exception on the rule. --Randykitty (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- As a second observation, in HEP, it is rather common for authors to be listed alphabetically, regardless of importance in contribution. Thus a paper by J Aaron, J Corning, J Smith, and J Ziltan could have any of them as the main author(s), and any of them as a "BTW, these people were also involved" addition. books} 22:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)]
- As a second observation, in HEP, it is rather common for authors to be listed alphabetically, regardless of importance in contribution. Thus a paper by J Aaron, J Corning, J Smith, and J Ziltan could have any of them as the main author(s), and any of them as a "BTW, these people were also involved" addition.
- You're right, now that you mention it, I remember such a case. The subject had huge citation counts and a large h-index, but always was something like 15th author among 30, never first or last or even second (must have been high-energy physics or something like that). But that's more like the exception on the rule. --Randykitty (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- A pedantic interpolation. There have been a few cases where people in very large and well cited research groups have been found non-notable because they do not stand out from the crowd. But this is not one such case. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC).
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed. In such cases we require evidence of independent achievement. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC).
- Keep per clear analyses above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC).
- Keep. I'm not sure the awards are major enough, but the citations to his works (and the low numbers of co-authors, including some highly-cited solo works) make a pass of WP:PROF#C1 clear enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2013 (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.