Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Baldomero Espina Barrio


 * 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.  Sandstein  11:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Angel Baldomero Espina Barrio

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article doesn't pass WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage on reliable or independent sources. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 05:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  SirEdimon  Dimmi!!! 05:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.  SirEdimon  Dimmi!!! 05:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. His Google Scholar profile shows two publications with over 100 citations, but one of them is a book by someone else. Discounting that, one highly-cited publication is probably not enough. That all said, copying and pasting the identical nomination statement on seven rapid-fire AfDs       doesn't make a strong case that the nominator has considered these cases individually or done the searching requested by WP:BEFORE. So although I tend to agree with the nominator in this case, I think a trout may still be due. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The subject appears to have one somewhat influential book, but no other notability is apparent.  Looks like a WP:BLP1E.  If the book meets WP:BOOKCRIT, then redirecting to an article on the book could be an alternative to deletion.  I hope the nominator did a careful WP:BEFORE on each article before batching them for deletion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Question Is the Revista Euroamericana de Antropología sufficiently high-profile such that being its editor-in-chief qualifies for WP:PROF? I'm guessing not, but I'd like to hear further opinions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Good question. I confess that I missed that statement from the article.  (I was distracted by the malformed ref).  But the criterion asks for a "major, well-established" journal.  I think that a journal that appears to have been started in approx. 2016 fails the "well-established" part. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2021 (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.