Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Barbucci

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. The author apparently will merge the info, so I'll make the info available to him/her. the_undertow ^talk 23:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Antonio Barbucci

Antonio Barbucci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This academic seems to fail WP:PROF. He is a ricercatore at the University of Genoa (that corresponds roughly to lecturer in the UK system). As such he would certainly not be inherently notable. Other clear claims to notability were missing, so I added a PROD. The PROD was contested by the original author, and Barbucci was suddenly promoted to "professor" (on the wiki page, not at the university, as can be seen here). The article was expanded with more vague claims to notability, but none seems to be substantial enough for meeting WP:PROF. (His institution does not make him notable, nor does the fact that he lectures and publishes scientific papers - that's just the normal work of a researcher.) -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Modification coming today Barbucci's article will be immediately downgraded and rolled into a new article on the high temperature fuel cells research unit "Genoa Joint Laboratories." Thanks for the guidance, no intent to mislead the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swilliams10 (talk • contribs)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• comment intended merge target Genoa Joint Laboratories has since been created (and tagged as CSD A7 four minutes later [1]). I suggest waiting a week on both these articles before passing judgement on notability. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Merge I don't this he does fails [[WP:PROF]. Rolling into Genoa Joint Laboratories would be a good idea. scope_creep (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The Genoa Joint Laboratories article is a mess, and is up for speedy, although it is a valid article. scope_creep (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per the author's suggestion. Though I wouldn't ascribe any dubious motives to the changing of "ricercatore" to "professor." Since ricercatore isn't an English word it is often translated. And (in America at least) professor (esp. with a lowercase p) is a common translation for the word. In fact, translating the Italian "professore" to "professor" in English is often a worse slip, since the former can include all school teachers. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd have no objection to re-creation if the 'Bibliography' section of his article could be filled in with some of his important papers. Saying that he has 80 peer-reviewed publications doesn't cut it if our article gives no pointers to them. I'd oppose merging to our Genoa Joint Laboratories article because it's still a mess. Either this article should be fixed, and become informative, or the Genoa Joint Laboratories article should become informative. So long as neither of them is helpful, I see no reason to keep or merge. His own web site was not useful. My web research went in circles; his important work was always just around the corner, but I never found it. EdJohnston (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Web of Science lists several publications, but the most-cited one has been mentioned only 21 times and only a total of 170 articles cited this researcher. That is not very impressive at all and does not indicate that his peers would consider him notable. --Crusio (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

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.