Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ion Filotti

: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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

=[[Ion Filotti]]=

:{{la|Ion Filotti}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Ion Filotti}})

An admirable career, but the [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&biw=1098&bih=693&q=%22Ion%20Filotti%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ps GScholar hits] aren't there. Neither is there any indication he may meet any of the WP:PROF criteria. And no, signing an appeal, delivering lectures at a summer school or serving on the foundation of an obscure board do not boost one's claims to notability.

Let me also note that this forms part of a wider pattern of cruft on the Filotti family: see this discussion, this one and this one for more details. - Biruitorul Talk 06:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gs shows one old paper with 77 cites. Not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC).
  • Delete. He has a good academic pedigree, papers in good conferences (and they're on topics of great interest to me; I've cited one of his papers in one of mine) but I have to agree with Xxanthippe that in retrospect they haven't had a big impact, so the case for WP:PROF#C1 isn't there. "Director of research" at CNRS sounds more impressive than it is (there are very many people with that title, it's not at the level of distinguished professor etc). And the social activities seem non-notable too. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete I note that we could in theory RS [http://www.revista22.ro/problema-romaniei-despartirea-de-un-trecut-comunist-ingrozitor-327.html his political views], but, goodness, this is not a valid bio entry, not per GNG and not per PROF. My 2 cents. Dahn (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2011 (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.