Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Pasqualetti


 * 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. v/r - TP 03:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Mike Pasqualetti

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unable to confirm subject notability per WP:ACADEMIC. Did not find third party sources asserting significant impact on his scholarly discipline; awards listed do not appear to qualify as "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". No indication of named chair, highest level academic post, chief editorship of journal, or other criteria. Google Scholar references appear to be by him, rather than about him. Tagged for notability since November 2007. Propose Delete. --DGaw (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - seems to clearly fail WP:ACADEMIC --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Senior academic with at least one book, The evolving landscape, currently in more than 300 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't believe publication of a book (or even multiple books) is generally considered "significant impact" in this context. WP:ACADEMIC suggests, "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work -- either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." --DGaw (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your nomination was quite reasonable DGaw. I did a citation analysis and was a bit surprised by the low number of citations and low h-index, given the topic. Still, 300+ book holdings in major libraries is not very easy to achieve, and is indicative of WP-notability. I must admit that I prefer to resort to library holdings to justify a keep for subjects in less citation-dense fields, where the opportunities for publication in journals are limited. Let’s see what other editors have to say. I can always revise my vote.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I’ve just cleaned up the article, removing a lot of the promotion/irrelevant stuff. Hopefully it will be less of a magnet for deletion nominations now.--Eric Yurken (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep:Pasqualetti seems a notable academic to me. Although the metrics don't necessarilly seem that high all in all with his published work and contributions I think he seems notable. From a technical point of view I think he might meet WP:AUTH #3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical ... reviews. I have added multiple independent reviews of his  The Evolving Landscape: Homer Aschmann's Geography book.  And also some of Wind Power in View: Landscapes of Power in a Crowded World (Msrasnw (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC))
 * PS WP:prof states ''This guideline is independent from the other subject specific notability guidelines, such as .. WP:AUTH etc.: it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline (WP:PROF) but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines.
 * Hi Msrasnw. Since you are working on this article, here are a couple of suggestions. Make the article more focused, highlighting a smaller number of the most notable items for the subject. Things that do not contribute much to notability, from a national/international perspective, should not be included – e.g., “he was chosen Co-Curricular Professor of the Month in March 2004”. The lack of focus in the current article may act as a “magnet” for deletion nominations. Also, add links to independent sources to support the notability claims – e.g., a link to the page with the award by the Association of Energy Engineers.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: Many thanks for your suggestions for my editing. I will think about this and may yet act! But feel free to improve the article yourself  :)  . Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC))


 * Keep His credentials as an WP:ACADEMIC are borderline, but he is often quoted as an expert in the public press. I have added several such citations to the article. I think his high public visibility combines with his respectable-but-not-overwhelming publication record to make him notable. --MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW the article should be renamed to Martin Pasqualetti or Martin J. Pasqualetti - the names by which he is invariably cited in both the professional and the lay press. --MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 17 December 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.