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 no consensus. Black Kite 11:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesto Mordecki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete No independent proof of any notability, no reliable sources, no anything. The prod was removed by an editor who just said that "30+ articles" means notable, which it clearly doesn't as nonnotable academics get published in nonnotable publications all the time. Notability has to be shown, not just assumed from a claim made by someone's resume. The article needs some reason why anyone would care. This is not LinkedIn or Facebook. And this is another prod removed by someone who goes around removing prod tags for no reason that comes close to meet WIkipedia standards. Someone really needs to look into prod removal abuse, as it just wastes everyone's time having to list these. DreamGuy (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as Mordecki is not shown here to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). --Boston (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete WP:PROF and agree; maybe a notification to users who removed PRODs or CSDs which subsequently failed afd?--  Chzz  ►  15:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There's also probable conflict of interest being that the main contributor is User:Mordecki.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Subject meets criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (academics) as demonstrated by the added external reference to [1]. I suggest that the issue of Ethnocentricity should be consider, as I believe that an American professor with the same number of published articles would meet the grade for notability. I also note the COI are not grounds for deleting and article. Esasus (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick google search finds 916 links [2], most of them referencing academic articles written by Prof. Mordecki. Notable? Yes. Esasus (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please carefully read Wikipedia:Notability (academics). It might make things clearer. Most mature academics will have presented dozens of papers and will have had many of them published. They still aren't necessarily notable. Your accusation about ethnocentricity is unjustly defamatory. This may be a case of WP:system bias but that is not the same thing. WP:COI is not a reason for deleting an article but it is justification for scrutinizing it rather than regarding it with leniency. --Boston (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is absurd. The person who removed the prod is using the person's own resume as if it were somehow an independent reliable source of notability. On top of that he tossed in a ridiculous claim of ethnocentrism, which has nothing to do with anything. He in fact knows that I have nominated articles of white people and so forth for deletion based upon lack of notability, because he's on those talk pages attacking me there as well. DreamGuy (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attacking you, so please don't characterize my comment is such a way. Also, I think you may be confusing "ethnocentrism" with "racism". I notice that DreamGuy has been just been blocked for 55 hours for his disruptions on another matter [3] so we will have peace for the weekend, but watch out for sockpuppets. Esasus (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 04:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 04:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Citation impact seems to indicates some degree of notability. Possibly meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed).--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Autobiography, containing a Ph.D., an Erdos number, and what appears to be a rotating departmental chairmanship. Dozens, if not hundreds, of Uruguayans must have done the like. What's he done, that anyone outside the University of the Republic (where they can read his web page) should care about him? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh. As with Eric Yurken (two comments above), I find the Google Scholar hits are ok. He has some pretty well-cited papers on optimal stopping that are also cited in books that appear themselves recognized. The citation numbers are more impressive when considering the papers are pretty recent. Not an amazing researcher by the numbers (especially since this isn't really a pure math area), but it's certainly plausible he has made a "significant impact in scholarly discipline". He's probably no worse than the many academics whose articles are kept in AFDs (yup not really a ringing endorsement, but whatever...)--C S (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete changed to Keep Accurate citation numbers can be gotten for Scopus or WoS if he publishes in international journals , as he does., There ar 9 papers in scopus, with citations 6, 3, 1, 1, and the rest zero. Mathematics citations come slowly, but this still is simply not a significant record of research, and by no means enough to make him an authority in this field. Science, unlike politics, is international and so are the standards. To have half of one's papers unreferred to completely is sufficient evidence of non notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • there's something seriously wrong with your search. There are over 100 cites for just one paper alone. I flipped through a dozen or so pages of the Google Scholar cites for his mostly highly cited paper and they are all legitimate citations (no self-ref and omitting cites from preprints). Certainly more than 6. --C S (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeated the Scopus search, and matched it against the GS results. Scopus does seem to have missed any of the articles. --including one in CRASP--an Elsevier publication! The GS results show notability.DGG (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I can't seem to access Scopus at the moment. In any case I tried WoS, which I often find misses a bunch of citations. It lists his most cited paper as having 26 cites, which doesn't match any of your results. Looking through the cites for that paper, it is definitely missing some number of legitimate cites (including ones from the books) that I found on Google Scholar. If I had to guess (I'm too lazy to go through and count), it looks like the actual number is about double. Again, not a shoo-in by any means, but far better than your comments would suggest. --C S (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will recheck this evening. DGG (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. As several comments already said, the evidence of his impact isn't especially impressive, so this is a borderline case. But rather than searching for his name, I tried searching for "optimal stopping" in Google scholar, and while he wasn't the first hit by any means, his name was in the first 10 hits. Obviously it would be better to have a more direct statement by a reliable third-party source saying “he is an established expert in this area” but this search result strongly implies the same thing to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment DGG (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep On the strength of his citations, and the results of David Eppstein's "optimal stopping " search, which gets about 10, 800 gscholar hits - so having a paper coming in #9 means something.John Z (talk) 09:57, 8 March 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.