Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umberto Straccia

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. Michig (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umberto Straccia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sign this person meets WP:ACADEMIC or WP:NBIO. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, also included references are not valid RS, many are just result pages. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have a User:Umberto Straccia. Maybe he could help establish the notability. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I've speedied this twice already as spam, not least because of the multiple spam links to the sales site for his book. Why you should want to ignore the spam and ask him why he is notable is beyond me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I detect signs of impatience here. This is a poorly-cited BLP article, and who knows, the person who edited it may have some relationship with the subject. These are reasons for discomfort; but they are not reasons for deletion. That must rest on the notability of the subject. Google Scholar returns 5406 citations of his papers; the h-index is 36 and the i10-index is 102. Microsoft Academic gives 175 publications, 2305 citations in AI, Information Retrieval and Databases; it lists his most cited papers as 'Reasoning within Fuzzy Description Logics' (242 citations) and the co-authored 'The tractability of subsumption in frame-based description languages' (193 citations). He has incidentally collaborated and co-authored papers with dozens of colleagues, another mark of a leading academic. The article truthfully claims that Straccia has given an invited Keynote talk at the International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management, which is certainly a Reliable Source; being invited to give a keynote talk is evidence that in that field, Straccia is noted as a leading authority. I hesitate to mention his book on fuzzy logic and semantic web languages, but it has been reputably published and is a substantial textbook in its field. Whether this is enough to make him notable or not, it is certainly enough to require proper consideration, not hasty deletion. I'll be happy to come back and !vote when other people have considered his case. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither an h-index of 36, nor a number of 242 citations to a single publication are extremely high in computer science, where the frequency of publication is enormous. I cannot establish using MS Academic that the SUM conference where Straccia is a major conference; its citation scores are low in MS Academic, and double-checking in GScholar shows them typically twice as high: a handful of cites for the most-cited works. I.e., the sources fail the bibliometrics test. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, then we should Delete. Thanks Qwertyus for doing the assessment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found this article because I was hunting down live autobiographies that slipped through the cracks. Created by WP:SPA. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:52, 24 October 2014 (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.