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. T. Canens (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Pedrosa Mendes[edit]

[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)

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. The subject has no distinguished awards and is not in a named chair. He is some sort of leader (but not the creator) of COPASI so I don't think he qualifies there. The citations look impressive until you strip out articles he co-authored as well as stuff from his employer and you're left with almost nothing. He might be notable in fifty years but today this article is just advertising and vanity. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With nearly 20,000 citations on GS a wide pass of WP:Prof#C1 [1]. A mighty trout for the nominator for failing to carry out WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
As C1 does not specify what "highly cited" means, it's impossible to fairly apply. I'm not surprised you abused it for your inclusionism. GS doesn't give me statistics to compare this subject to others, either. Next time, please show me an objective criterion I can apply. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He is the corresponding author on the papers that introduce COPASI, this usually indicates that he is the project leader. His citation record is objectively impressive - an h-index in the 50s, 34 articles cited more than 100 times and more than 1000 citations per year per GS puts him in the top rank of academics. Polyharrisson (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1. The nomination already said "the citations look impressive", and most academic publications these days are co-authored so pretending that science has to be done by a lone hero to be valuable makes no sense. The claim that he is "not the creator" of COPASI appears to be at best misleading — he created the predecessor system and led the development of COPASI itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: What I should have said is that the citations in the article are not sufficiently independent of the subject for GNG and his work with COPASI likely does not qualify him. I can see how I was misunderstood. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How is that relevant when PROF, not GNG, is the appropriate notability criterion? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as satisfying WP:NPROF. "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work" - already demonstrated by the editors above. High h-index, absolutely no reason to dismiss co-authored work. I also don't see where the "vanity" comes from. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep agreeing with all the above, definitely notable (but needs updating)Duncan.Hull (talk) 06:05, 15 May 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.