Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raffaele A. Calogero
- 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. Per current consensus. Should this become a G5, I have no objection to my closure being revisited. Star Mississippi 22:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Raffaele A. Calogero
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Raffaele A. Calogero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to meet
WP:GNG. Highest accolades are not sourced independently. In fact there is no significant coverage in secondary sources. ––FormalDude talk 11:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:NPROF C1 for highly cited papers. Agree that article needs more secondary sources. CaptainOatMeal (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)]
- Comment, leaning keep. He has ~6600 Scopus citations and an h-index of 40, which would normally be enough for me to not even look at his coauthors. His presidency of the Italian Bioinformatics Society might also be enough for C6, depending on how "major" it is. However, looking at his highest-cited papers, he's always a middle author; in fact, out of his top 20 publications, he is first or last author on just 3: his first-author dissertation paper in PNAS in 1988 (138 cites), a last-author Bioinformatics article with just 3 authors (88), and a last-author BMC Cancer article (76). I don't really want to write a script scraping all 976 coauthors off his Scopus paper list (my normal approach is to pull from the Scopus coauthors list, but that is limited to 150 people), so can someone else maybe provide input on whether his scholarship impact is significantly above that of the average cancer professor? JoelleJay (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep as per JoelleJay's comments. Not 100% sure. WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)]
- Leaning keep per strength of citations. BD2412 T 04:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, paid spam and meets WP:G5 anyway (I reported to SPI and sent evidence to functionaries). MarioGom (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)]
- Week keep Article is in a poor state, but subject appears to meet WP:NPROF. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:01, 23 January 2022 (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.