Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diego Gambetta

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 snowball keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Gambetta[edit]

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

Notability reasons previously raised several months ago, yet not addressed, or even edited, since SausageLady (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gambetta is a notable scholar. He is even quoted in numerous articles on Wikipedia. - DonCalo (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. GS cites 6119, 2571, 1372, 586....etc. h index over 30. Full Professor at Oxford, well sourced article. This is among the most incompetent AfD nominations to come to these pages. It appears to amount to WP:disruptive editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I did make a mistake. The top two cites I gave referred to somebody else's publications and h index comes to 24. But the case still stands. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy Keep. I too would take it for granted that anyone who is a full professor at Oxford has to be a notable scholar. I am getting slightly smaller citation numbers in GScholar than those mentioned by Xxanthippe (1372, 1367, 586,...), but these are still very high numbers, especially for a scholar in humanities. Also, he is an elected Fellow of the British Academy. So clearly passes citeria 1 and 3 of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, pretty significant coverage in traditional newsmedia, 126 hits in GoogleNews[1]. The article could use the attention of an expert, though, and some clean-up for neutrality of language and tone. Nsk92 (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Nsk92 (Speedy would be fine too). LotLE×talk 19:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and beg the closing admin to admonish the good nominator to familiarize with WP:BEFORE. Ray^Talk 05:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely keep. No question of notability. MiRroar (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nsk92, looks fine. JBsupreme (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.