Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael Vargas-Bernal

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. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Vargas-Bernal[edit]

Newly-created article. There is a possible WP:COI with the article's creator, many of whose edits have been to promote Vargas-Bernal, but in the absence of a clear violation of WP:AUTO the more important reason for the nomination is that the subject looks unlikely to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete -- very sparse academic record, single-digit citation figures for articles, no other evidence of notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:PROF. No evidence of significant citability of his work. Very little in GoogleScholar[1], GoogleBooks[2], nothing at all in WebofScience and nothing in MathSciNet. No significant academic awards or honors beyond the grad student level, according to the June 2008 CV[3]. Nsk92 (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:PROF per Nsk92. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I flagged this article yesterday, and it still lacks sufficient WP:RS to meet WP:PROF notability criteria ... it's already been delete twice as WP:CSD#A7, so it probably should be salted this time ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.117.122 (talk · contribs) _{19:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete 7 papers in GS, none with more than one or two citations. They are conference proceeds, which would be OK in this subject for major conferences, but the lack of citations shows lack of significance in the profession--together with the results from WoS--which, by the by, is unreliable in inclusion of even important conferences in most subjects, even where such proceedings are really significant.DGG (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator does not meet inclusion criteria for professors and the like. RFerreira (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2008 (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.