Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommaso A. Dragani (2nd 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 keep. Primefac (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tommaso A. Dragani[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)

Apologies for a second AfD so soon after the first. A previous AfD seems to have touched only on (now-fixed) copyright issues. I think the subject may not be notable per Wikipedia:Notability (academics). At first blush, the author appears to have many citations, but on closer examination most of those citations come from a single highly-cited paper led by a large consortium, of which the author was just a part. According to Scopus, the most cited papers on which the subject is the senior author (i.e. his laboratory did the work) have been cited 130 times, 115 times, and 95 times. Each of these papers is in cancer genetics (a very highly cited field) and is from the mid-1990s (so lots of time to garner citations if they were highly influential papers). Given the field and the passage of time, I don't think the citation counts here demonstrate "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" as WP:NPROF's first criterion intends. Ajpolino (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just for clarity, the six most-cited papers from the subject's laboratory group are [1] (1993, 130 citations), [2] (1995, 115 citations), [3] (1993, 95 citations), [4] (2005, 85 citations), [5] (1996, 68 citations), [6] (2009, 65 citations). He's also authored a couple of reviews with somewhat high citation count: [7] (2010, 131 citations) and [8] (2010, 100 citations), but these are reviews of the literature, not research themselves, so I think they're outside of NPROF's first criterion. Also reviews are typically more cited than primary literature, so I don't think these are unusually high citation counts for a review in molecular biology. Ajpolino (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - citation count is average, but the quality of publications is good with many of them (many in high impact journals including nature genetics and cancer research, and many are last author). I think also he was the first to use microsatellite mapping in mice to discover cancer loci which ultimately led to the discovery of many cancer genes per his 1993 study. As a note his current position appears to be equivalent to an English endowed professor. 1990s publications do have fewer citations as a consequence of them not being fully coded, and I note he started out in the 1980s. Partly because this technique was superseded. PainProf (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Benefit of the doubt on meeting WP:Prof - a large body of cited work.PainProf (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per PainProf, article needs to be improved, but the quantum of cited work is material. Britishfinance (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2020 (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.