Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge Aliaga


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Jorge Aliaga

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unreferenced BLP, and does not appear to satisfy WP:PROF. TimothyRias (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC) TimothyRias (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * weak Keep how can you tell whether it meets wp:prof without a search? Checking Scopus, I find 32 publications, every one of them in excellent international journals. Highest citations, 37, 17, 16, 14  all ffrom Physical Review or Physical Review Letters;  h=11, meaning 11 papers with 11 or more citations.  I added refs to the top 2, so it is no longer unref.  Full professor & dean of his section of major international university.    DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PROF neither being a full professor nor being dean is enough to establish notability. His publications and citations seem typically what you would expect of a person in his position after 25 years in the field, but I don't think it is enough to establish that he has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources as is mandated by WP:PROF. (For the record I did look at his publications before starting this AfD, and found nothing to convince me that he satisfies any of the notability guidelines.)TimothyRias (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. h-index is very low for his field. Highest-cited paper is 37 after 25 years in the field? Article makes absolutely no claim of notable discoveries. WP:PROF requires that the subject is more noteworthy than the typical professor, which is clearly not the case here. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I find GS cites to be 15, 14, 13 12, 11. This is low for a physicist. Scopus is probably better but still not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Week Keep: Evidence seems to indicate he is a/the leading Physicist at the leading university in Argentina. National notability (Msrasnw (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC))
 * No such "national" guideline or policy exists. I have never seen such a notion put forward in an AfD on a professor before. Abductive  (reasoning) 12:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep . Delete. Publications in "Physical Reviews", he was quoted 211 times according to ISI citation index. This seems to be enough to establish notability of a physicist. But looking more carefully at the article, I do not see any useful information about the subject. What he actually did, in terms of science? Any discoveries or theories? It tells nothing.Biophys (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is having 211 citations "enough to establish notability of a physicist"? To me it doesn't seem to be that much, are there full professors out there with less citations?TimothyRias (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dean is not a high enough level of academic administration to pass WP:PROF, the citation record is not strong enough to convince me of a pass of #C1, and though there are a reasonable number of Spanish-language news stories quoting him I didn't see any that provide nontrivial coverage that is actually about him, so I'm not convinced of a pass of WP:GNG either. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete at h-index of only 11. It should be at least 50% higher to be worth considering an article. Nergaal (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2011 (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.