Talk:Charles Santori

New article patrol
Please review WP:PROF, which provides criteria regarding the notability of academics and researchers. If the subject of this article is also the author, please see WP:PROUD, an essay about possible disadvantages of having a Wikipedia article. (This was not the case.) Roches (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know from where you got the point that I am the subject, but I must assure you that I am not Charles Santori (or any of his representatives for that matter), so WP:PROUD should be crossed out to prevent confusion. According to GS his h-index is 38, high enough to be included into Wikipedia. To review it, I would like to ask and  to step in and weigh in on the issue which was aroused by (probably) misinformed user Roches.--Mishae (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The new article patrol is simply a check to ensure that new pages conform to the basic Wikipedia guidelines. Articles are tagged if they have possible concerns, and I can only go by what is present in the article when it is patrolled. I thought there was a possibility that this was an autobiographical article; if that were the case, my link to WP:PROUD was meant to ensure that the author was aware of the potential risks involved.


 * The notability guidelines for researchers are not based on h-index or any other metric. The article did not appear to contain an indication that the criteria were met, so I added the tag. The tag is not meant to imply that the subject is not notable; it's a request for more information. Roches (talk) 04:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but GNG is not the sole requirement. It meats WP:PROF #1 because he have a highly cited work (and even more then one).--Mishae (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it does. The 2002 Nature paper is fairly highly cited, although Santori is neither the first author nor the corresponding author. I do not think the article meets a strict interpretation of the notability criteria. But my standard for "highly cited paper" is very high, and it's only by chance that I happened to be the one to patrol the article. So, per WP:PRESERVE, there's no objection to the article remaining here. Roches (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , during AFDs, academics are usually considered to meet ACADEMIC#1 if they have one or two articles cited 100 times or more and an h-index of about 19/20. If you think that is too low, I absolutely agree. However, that's a minority viewpoint and the practice is what I just said. In the present case, Santori is the first author of a Nature paper cited 1100 times. That alone would get him kept at an AFD... I count about 20 papers with about 100 citations or more, a total of over 8000, and an h-index, like said of 38. That's notable even to pmy personal standards and several times over what is needed usually at AFD. These figures will certainly be a bit lower if we'd use the more discriminating Web of Science (or even Scopus), but not enough to bring this below the notability threshold. As an aside, I find it strange that although being first author on several highly cited papers (including that 2002 Nature paper as far as I can see), he's not last author on any paper. That raises the possibility that he just is working for somebody (or several somebodies) who are the real drivers behind this research (and who actually wrote those papers)... Hope this helps. I'm not watchlisting this, so please ping me if further clarification is needed. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the AfD guidelines, just the notability guidelines, so thanks for informing me. It's clear that the article would survive at AfD and it wasn't my intent to propose deletion. I hoped the notability tag would lead to more notability-establishing facts in the article. The message asks for editors to add information to support notability, so please let me know if it's not inappropriate to use the notability tag when AfD is not being considered. I'll say now that what prompted me to flag the article was the lack of indication that the subject is a principal investigator; it only said he works at HP. If PIs can be non-notable, can a researcher working for someone else be notable? Roches (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi again . Those are not "AfD guidelines", it's just my experience with many AfDs of academics. It's not inappropriate to tag something for notability even if you don't intend to take something to AfD, but it is inappropriate to leave that tag if notability is established (it's a BLP after all). If you use Twinkle, there's a number of other tags that you could put on the article to encourage people to improve it. As for the rest of your remarks, I agree completely. I just think that it would be a waste of time to take this to AfD, because current practice is that this would be overwhelmingly kept. --Randykitty (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)