Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergio Archangeslky


 * 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. Withdrawn by nominator - with the correct spelling, clearly passes WP:NPROF. (non-admin closure)  Onel 5969  TT me 11:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Sergio Archangeslky

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't appear to meet WP:NSCHOLAR.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep and move to Sergio Archangelsky (correcting spelling mistake in title). Lots of breadth in highly cited publications in what I believe to be a medium-to-low citation field looks like a pass of WP:NPROF C1 to me; I also believe that the membership in the argentine academy of sciences may pass WP:NPROF C3 (although I am having trouble parsing the various levels of membership).  The article needs some work, but as usual, WP:DINC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:NACADEMICS points two, three, and five. Point one would be satisfied if independent sources existed. While the article would be better with independent sources, professional sources are fine for uncontroversial info. Uses x (talk • contribs) 20:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments above, also clearly meets WP:NPROF#1 with an h-index of 46 and 7k citations. --hroest 00:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. He's only a corresponding member, not full member, of the National Academy of Sciences of Argentina, so the case for WP:PROF is present but weak. I think the case for #C1 is clearer. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 15 April 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.