Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paolo Piccione

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. Sandstein 10:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Piccione

[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)

Couldn't find anything significant that could establish his authority in the field, No RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 and WP:Prof#C3 on citations. Nidaloove (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. #C1 is always a hard case to make in pure mathematics. But as president of the Brazilian Mathematical Society he passes WP:PROF#C6 and as a member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences he passes #C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Setting aside WP:PROF#C1, he passes C3 and C6. XOR'easter (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Citations seem OK for theoretical physics/applied maths, but I see only two single author papers. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
- Note that, following the usual conventions for this area, the authors of Piccione's publications are listed alphabetically. So there is no useful information in the low numbers of first-author publications; it means only that his name comes relatively late in the alphabet. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Order of authors is hardly relevant for a single author paper. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, but asking for single-author papers rather than first-author papers seems unusual to me. Why would we want to say that only loners can be notable? —David Eppstein (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fewer the number of authors, the more credit accrues to each. It is useful to see if the subject has shown themselves capable of independent work. In this case there is not a problem, but in some cases that involve new academics working in large groups there may be. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2019 (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.