Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabio Rinaldi

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. There is a rough consensus that the subject meets WP:PROF#C1. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Rinaldi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NPROF or GNG. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Switzerland. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Mathematics, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I think his citation counts on Google Scholar are good enough for WP:PROF#C1 but I didn't find anything else on a quick search. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Citation counts look respectable at first glance, but the highly-cited papers are also highly coauthored, and middle author (in a field where that at least sometimes matters) in this situation doesn't impress me very much. I believe both AI and bioinformatics to be higher citation fields. Notability outside of possible WP:NPROF C1 looks unlikely. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not sure I'm seeing notability, almost but not quite at PROF. Maybe a few more papers under their belt and they'd qualify. Oaktree b (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree most of the top citations in GS come from highly coauthored work. If you exclude these, though, you still get 317,163,149,105,101 (some of which he is first author), which seems enough to meet WP:PROF to me. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: seems worth noting that this article is almost certainly an autobiography. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A possibility but not a justification for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes well that's why I labeled it "Comment" rather that "Delete", isn't it? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. Generally having 10 papers with 100+ citations each and an h-index of 31 is sufficient to pass NPROF. --hroest 21:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Espresso Addict's analysis of his citations.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as he has publications indexed in MEDLINE --Maxim Masiutin (talk)

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.