Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paola Zizzi

: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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

=[[Paola Zizzi]]=

:{{la|Paola Zizzi}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paola Zizzi}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Paola Zizzi}})

A seemingly non-notable physicist, whose article is filled with unsubstantiated peacock language and contains no actual sources about her. Although some of her works have attracted double-digit citations (enough to qualify her as a serious academic rather than a purely fringe scientist) this is still far below the standard of WP:PROF #1, nor does she seem to pass any of the other WP:PROF criteria. Google news archive finds nothing about her. Our article was recently prodded and unprodded, both by anonymous editors. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Wow theory. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete. Citability in GScholar and WebOfScience is fairly small, nothing else in the record to indicate passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete. GS h index of 6. Not there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC).
Delete. And WoS h-index of 5. Agree. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2010 (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.