Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alessandro Capone (linguist) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Alessandro Capone (linguist)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previously deleted via AfD over five years ago at Articles for deletion/Alessandro Capone (linguist). I would normally just tag this for G4, but the passage of time makes me wonder if something is different. I don't personally have an opinion on whether this should be deleted or kept, but (see below) I think the question of whether Capone passes WP:PROF in 2016 ought to be discussed. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 06:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The article says he's an editor-in-chief of the Springer Series Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy, and Psychology. Frankly, I don't really know what this entails but it seems fairly close in spirit, if not in word, to criterion 8 of WP:NACADEMICS: "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area". So until someone proves this wrong, I'd say keep . Uanfala (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Springer Series" means a series of books rather than a journal, with each book usually being an edited collection of essays (but edited by an individual selected for that particular book in the series, rather than by the series editor). I agree it's close to the spirit of NACADEMICS, but with the sheer number of these series that Springer publishes... I'm not sure if we can say just how "major" or "well-established" any particular one is. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, now that I look at it, it just seems that Capone is one of three editors (he's just the first named) of a few anthologies which are published under a Springer Series. The copyright pages of those books don't call Capone an EIC or head editor, and to my understanding, editing a textbook or essay collection is quite a different distinction from being EIC of a major, well-established academic journal in any subject area. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One last note: This Springer Series was established in 2013 and has put out 7 volumes. Whether that meets "major" or "well-established" is going to need to be evaluated. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well then, I guess his notability has yet to be established. Uanfala (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. GS h-index of 13 is rather weak and I find too many self-citations to pass WP:Prof. Many of his publications are in journals whose editorial boards he serves on, some are not attributed at all. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on the discussion thus far, I've struck my note in the OP that I don't have an opinion on deletion: This article should be deleted. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's been five years since the previous AfD but his Google scholar citation record is still too anemic for WP:PROF. And I don't think that co-editor of a book series and editor-in-chief of a major journal are enough the same thing for him to squeak by that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2016 (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.