Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José Miguel Sagüillo

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 delete. Fails WP:NACADEMIC.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

José Miguel Sagüillo[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Notability issues. The only reference is a 2011 paper of his. No substantial coverage found, and I see no claim of meeting NPROF. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete. Seems to be too few cites in GS to pass WP:Prof#C1 yet, even in a low cited field and language. Can book reviews help? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. I agree re the citation counts. As for book reviews, I looked on JSTOR, MathSciNet, zbMATH, and Google Scholar, but only found one review of a co-edited volume (JSTOR 20059980), not enough for WP:AUTHOR. But maybe more, for more significant contributions by the subject, can be found elsewhere? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears that a Catedrático is the Spanish equivalent of an established chair, so passes WP:NPROF #5: "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.". -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding, from Academic ranks in Spain, is that catedrático is merely the Spanish equivalent of full professor; likely to be notable (just as full professors in the US would be) but not automatically notable merely because of their position. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, but the problem is that the notability guidelines obsess about named chairs. Most countries do not commonly have named chairs, as they do in the USA. In most countries, especially non-English-speaking countries, all full professors effectively hold an equally prestigious post. Hence the section that says "or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon". If we applied the guidelines rigidly without taking this clause into consideration then few professors outside the USA would qualify per NPROF #5, which would clearly be WP:SYSTEMIC and against the spirit of the guidelines. Even in the UK, until a few decades ago all professors would effectively meet the requirements of NPROF #5, and those who hold established chairs (as opposed to personal chairs) still do, although most do not hold named chairs, which are fairly uncommon in the UK (especially outside Oxbridge). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with an obsession with named chairs exists. It give partisans the opportunity to WP:Wikilawyer and cut corners. I would be happy for that category to be removed. The only criterion to pass WP:Prof should be demonstrated influence of scholarship and research. Others can try their luck with WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Keep For being a catedratico at a Spanish university (NPROF No. 5). I agree that he is looking weak on the citation front. This paper didn't show up for me in an ordinary GS search (I fount it via his research gate). It has more citations (30) than his 'The absence of multiple universes of discourse in the 1936 Tarski consequence-definition paper', which is highlighted in the article. I realise the count is low, even for his field, but it is not low enough to make me question whether he less than a regular catedratico in Spain. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that a catedratico satisfies WP:Prof#C5 as it seems routine. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Well, I think Necrothesp's comment above summarises well why I think the catedratico position satisfies Criterion No. 5: full professorships in Europe match chaired professorships in the US in prestige. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I am not convinced that full professorship at a European university is comparable to a named chair in the US. My understand that WP:NPROF C5 is anyway supposed to be a proxy for the other NPROF criteria (especially C1), and significant progress towards the other criteria should be visible. I don't see that here. I also don't see much in the way of other signs of notability. The most likely appears to be WP:NAUTHOR, but this would require reviews. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there any coverage (even a university press release) of when he was named to the position of catedratico? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This one is from the institutional web page, but it doesn't say more than that he holds the position. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The impression I have about European chairs is that the situation varies. The newer universities are likely to follow the US pattern, others are transitional. I think each individual instance needs checking, and the best way will be through their website. If he is the only professor of the subject in the university, then it's meaningful. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... and among the list of faculty [1] at the department associated with the page linked by Modussiccandi, I see 11 current faculty with Catedrática/o in their title, out of about 60. That does not include the subject here, who is listed among former faculty [2] (where there are another 6 catedratica/os.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find 11 out of 60 a reasonable number. At my own department at a British university, the ratio is not drastically different. In my particular subject group, we have five tenured staff members, three of whom are full professors. I understand, of course, that not all UK universities are in all respects comparable to the subject's institution. The fact that he is retired now is not a problem for me; What matters is that he has held the post at one point. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the somewhat successful WP:MILL professor will achieve the Catedrát rank by the end of her/his career. This is not a characteristic of a position meeting WP:NPROF C5, although many such senior professors may be notable. I agree that whether he is retired or not is irrelevant to notability, and did not intend to imply otherwise. @DGG: may have further comments. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a professorship alone does not pass WP:NPROF#5. --hroest 16:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody actually said it did, if you read what was written. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the academic title alone is not enough to pass NPROF. Geschichte (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2021 (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.