Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pia Parolin

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. AfD listed for almost 3 weeks, trending to keep based on meeting WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Parolin[edit]

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

Normally I'm the first to be concerned about the deletion of academics, but in this case, I simply cannot find any particular ground for notability, either under impact, awards etc. Circéus (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Keep. The nominator should have looked at GS. I can find enough citations there to give an h index of around 15. Quite respectable for a relatively obscure field. List of publications needs to be removed though. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- When did wiki-calculated bibliometrics turn into reliable sources? Notwithstanding that obvious WP:ORissue, you forget the third part of the criterion: "demonstrated by independent reliable sources." This is our general criterion ("received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"), the secondary topic-specific criteria are (in my mind) used to assess specific topics where permanent notability is not nearly so clear as for, say, the average head of state. If the only argument we have for her is an h-index, she does not satisfy the WP notability requirements. Circéus (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What you're claiming is incorrect in the sense that there is long-established consensus that citations in the scientific literature to a person's work do indeed count for the purposes of demonstrating notability (see e.g. WP:PROF). I'm a little leary of GS myself because it has well-known biases both pro and con. However, WoS is a "Wikipedia-approved" source of citation counts (see WP:PROF again) and that database does indeed show the subject to have acceptable impact, she having >250 cumulative citations. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. WoS shows >250 citations, conclusive evidence that WP:PROF #1 is satisfied. The article itself is admittedly not in very good shape right now, but it is clear that there is significant WP:RS that demonstrates notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Well, I'd love to see such sources, because a citation count isn't one.Circéus (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:Prof#C1 and you will find that Wikipedia policy finds that it is. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Let me quote a relevant statement from WP:PROF: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work". Whether Circéus is personally are convinced or not, high citation count is indeed sufficient indicator of notability and this AfD is sure to close as "keep" on simple application of policy. Since not everyone has access to WoS, allow me to list just a few of her highly-cited articles: P Parolin (2001) Oecologia 128(3), 326-335 (36 citations); P Parolin et al (2004) Botanical Review 70(3), 357-380 (31 citations), etc. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 00:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not sure what the relister is looking for here. The above information shows conclusive pass based on policy. Any other entries are likely to simply repeat the same information. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. She has an ok citation count, but not high enough to be convincing to me: on Google scholar, her high citation count is 63, then everything else in 20s. I wasn't sure whether this was maybe just a low-citation field, so I looked at some other people working on plant germination in the Amazon, and found by comparison Christopher Uhl who has numbers nearly ten times larger (and no article here)... I know, WP:WAX, but to me that indicates that the field is not the issue and that the case for WP:PROF#C1 really is unconvincing. She has some leadership role in a couple of societies but again not quite enough for #C6: they're not the highest level posts and it's not clear how major the societies are. And there really doesn't seem to be much to say verifiably about her besides the titles of her publications and those leadership posts. So I'm left wondering, like the nominator, what distinguishes her from any other academic? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although v reluctant to delete academics esp female, her most cited article in google scholar has only 65 citations, and there are no WP:RS stories about her that I can see. NBeale (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Agricola's sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2011 (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.