Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matteo Carandini (second nomination)

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 no consensus. CitiCat ^♫ 22:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matteo Carandini

Matteo Carandini (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I would like to renominate this page for deletion because this person has only 30 publications, not very notable, and a definite lightweight in neuroscience. This person definitely does not meet notability per WP:BIO. Mnemopis 03:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• This page was incorrectly renominated; I fixed it Tizio 15:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 01:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep 30 publications sure sounds notable. Edward321 03:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 04:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete 30 publications is quite a normal production for a scientist in neuroscience, nothing above average. --Crusio 18:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Keb25 14:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Whether 30 publications is notable depends not only on e field, but on how important they are. Importance is judged by what other peer scientists think of them, expressed most clearly by how often they cite them. Web of Science shows 45 peer-reviewed articles, actually, most of them in absolutely first-rate journals like Science (magazine). The most cited are cited 198, 182, 129 times. This is notable, even in neuroscience--as a rule of thumb, two or more papers over 100 times is enough, considering most published papers get cited only 1 or 2 tmes. The h-value is 16, 16 titles cited 16 or more times. This is not Nobel prize level, but it is certainly enough. DGG (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment This is indeed a good solid scientist, like thousands of others.... --Crusio 09:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That redlink was h-index, presumably? Tizio 17:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP:PROF--AmerHisBuff 09:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Several high-quality publications with exceptionally high citations, as established by DGG, suggest subject meets WP:PROF. Espresso Addict 18:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'd like to see more meat on the article - but, given the research above by DGG, I'd concur that the subject is notable within his field. WP:PROF doesn't mean that membership in the academia is an argument against notability, but merely that it cannot be the only argument for notability; in this case, it is not. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:05, 12 September 2007 (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.