Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugenio Culurciello
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eugenio Culurciello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An autobiography of an assistant a new associate professor at Yale University. Top citation counts (via Web of Science) are 91, 11, 11, 9...), which would appear to fall short of meeting WP:PROF. (Subject also doesn't appear to meet any of the other criteria for PROF). Bfigura (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete -- citations are higher in GS, but not that high, and there's no other basis for notability. The article currently says he is an associate professor, but his own web site says he is assistant. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- About his rank: his CV[1] posted at his website says that he is an Associate Professor as of July 2009. Nsk92 (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Adjusted accordingly. --Bfigura (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- About his rank: his CV[1] posted at his website says that he is an Associate Professor as of July 2009. Nsk92 (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. His citations in Google scholar are pretty good for his rank but I don't want to rely on citation counts for passing WP:PROF unless they are much better than "pretty good for his rank", and I don't see any other justification for keeping. It seems reasonably likely that he will be sufficiently notable in a few years but this article was created too early in his career and it doesn't do us or him a lot of good keeping it at this point. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree with the above arguments. What has not been mentioned yet is that WoS shows an h-index of at most 7. That is, taken as a whole, his research output has not yet had much of an impact, especially considering that EE is a relatively active (high-citation) research sector. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete, h-index of 10 or 11, associate prof. Highest cite number for silicon-on-sapphire author:Culurciello is 10, that article appears way down the returns for silicon-on-sapphire. Abductive (reasoning) 23:47, 22 November 2009 (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.