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

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Gamaliel ( talk ) 17:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep, easily passes WP:GNG and WP:PROF and any other kind of notability tests. Recipient of several awards, authored several books, and h-index in the mid-20s, with several papers in the 100+ citation counts. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  17:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   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). —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I checked the Web of Science, which produces less inflated values than Google Scholar (but does not include citations to books). It lists 55 articles, which have been cited more than 1100 times, with an h-index of 18. Three of his articles have been cited over 100 times each. Add to that about 300 citations of his book Gravitation and Inertia (published at Princeton University Press; over 600 citations on Google Scholar) and a PROSE Award and we have a clear pass of 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. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:47, 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 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.