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.
Notability issues. The only reference is a 2011 paper of his. No substantial coverage found, and I see no claim of meeting NPROF.
User:力 (powera,
π,
ν)
02:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. I agree re the citation counts. As for book reviews, I looked on JSTOR, MathSciNet, zbMATH, and Google Scholar, but only found one review of a co-edited volume (
JSTOR20059980), not enough for
WP:AUTHOR. But maybe more, for more significant contributions by the subject, can be found elsewhere? —
David Eppstein (
talk)
08:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. It appears that a Catedrático is the Spanish equivalent of an established chair, so passes
WP:NPROF #5: "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.". --
Necrothesp (
talk)
11:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)reply
My understanding, from
Academic ranks in Spain, is that catedrático is merely the Spanish equivalent of full professor; likely to be notable (just as full professors in the US would be) but not automatically notable merely because of their position. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
18:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Indeed, but the problem is that the notability guidelines obsess about named chairs. Most countries do not commonly have named chairs, as they do in the USA. In most countries, especially non-English-speaking countries, all full professors effectively hold an equally prestigious post. Hence the section that says "or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon". If we applied the guidelines rigidly without taking this clause into consideration then few professors outside the USA would qualify per NPROF #5, which would clearly be
WP:SYSTEMIC and against the spirit of the guidelines. Even in the UK, until a few decades ago all professors would effectively meet the requirements of NPROF #5, and those who hold established chairs (as opposed to personal chairs) still do, although most do not hold named chairs, which are fairly uncommon in the UK (especially outside Oxbridge). --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)reply
I agree with an obsession with named chairs exists. It give partisans the opportunity to
WP:Wikilawyer and cut corners. I would be happy for that category to be removed. The only criterion to pass
WP:Prof should be demonstrated influence of scholarship and research. Others can try their luck with
WP:GNG.
Xxanthippe (
talk)
23:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC).reply
Keep For being a
catedratico at a Spanish university (NPROF No. 5). I agree that he is looking weak on the citation front.
This paper didn't show up for me in an ordinary GS search (I fount it via his research gate). It has more citations (30) than his 'The absence of multiple universes of discourse in the 1936 Tarski consequence-definition paper', which is highlighted in the article. I realise the count is low, even for his field, but it is not low enough to make me question whether he less than a regular catedratico in Spain.
Modussiccandi (
talk)
12:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Well, I think Necrothesp's comment above summarises well why I think the catedratico position satisfies Criterion No. 5: full professorships in Europe match chaired professorships in the US in prestige.
Modussiccandi (
talk)
07:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. I am not convinced that full professorship at a European university is comparable to a named chair in the US. My understand that
WP:NPROF C5 is anyway supposed to be a proxy for the other NPROF criteria (especially C1), and significant progress towards the other criteria should be visible. I don't see that here. I also don't see much in the way of other signs of notability. The most likely appears to be
WP:NAUTHOR, but this would require reviews.
Russ Woodroofe (
talk)
17:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment The impression I have about European chairs is that the situation varies. The newer universities are likely to follow the US pattern, others are transitional. I think each individual instance needs checking, and the best way will be through their website. If he is the only professor of the subject in the university, then it's meaningful. DGG (
talk )
01:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)reply
... and among the list of faculty
[1] at the department associated with the page linked by
Modussiccandi, I see 11 current faculty with Catedrática/o in their title, out of about 60. That does not include the subject here, who is listed among former faculty
[2] (where there are another 6 catedratica/os.)
Russ Woodroofe (
talk)
17:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)reply
I find 11 out of 60 a reasonable number. At my own department at a British university, the ratio is not drastically different. In my particular subject group, we have five tenured staff members, three of whom are full professors. I understand, of course, that not all UK universities are in all respects comparable to the subject's institution. The fact that he is retired now is not a problem for me; What matters is that he has held the post at one point.
Modussiccandi (
talk)
18:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)reply
It looks like the somewhat successful
WP:MILL professor will achieve the Catedrát rank by the end of her/his career. This is not a characteristic of a position meeting
WP:NPROF C5, although many such senior professors may be notable. I agree that whether he is retired or not is irrelevant to notability, and did not intend to imply otherwise. @
DGG: may have further comments.
Russ Woodroofe (
talk)
08:40, 10 December 2021 (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.
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.
Notability issues. The only reference is a 2011 paper of his. No substantial coverage found, and I see no claim of meeting NPROF.
User:力 (powera,
π,
ν)
02:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. I agree re the citation counts. As for book reviews, I looked on JSTOR, MathSciNet, zbMATH, and Google Scholar, but only found one review of a co-edited volume (
JSTOR20059980), not enough for
WP:AUTHOR. But maybe more, for more significant contributions by the subject, can be found elsewhere? —
David Eppstein (
talk)
08:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. It appears that a Catedrático is the Spanish equivalent of an established chair, so passes
WP:NPROF #5: "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.". --
Necrothesp (
talk)
11:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)reply
My understanding, from
Academic ranks in Spain, is that catedrático is merely the Spanish equivalent of full professor; likely to be notable (just as full professors in the US would be) but not automatically notable merely because of their position. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
18:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Indeed, but the problem is that the notability guidelines obsess about named chairs. Most countries do not commonly have named chairs, as they do in the USA. In most countries, especially non-English-speaking countries, all full professors effectively hold an equally prestigious post. Hence the section that says "or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon". If we applied the guidelines rigidly without taking this clause into consideration then few professors outside the USA would qualify per NPROF #5, which would clearly be
WP:SYSTEMIC and against the spirit of the guidelines. Even in the UK, until a few decades ago all professors would effectively meet the requirements of NPROF #5, and those who hold established chairs (as opposed to personal chairs) still do, although most do not hold named chairs, which are fairly uncommon in the UK (especially outside Oxbridge). --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)reply
I agree with an obsession with named chairs exists. It give partisans the opportunity to
WP:Wikilawyer and cut corners. I would be happy for that category to be removed. The only criterion to pass
WP:Prof should be demonstrated influence of scholarship and research. Others can try their luck with
WP:GNG.
Xxanthippe (
talk)
23:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC).reply
Keep For being a
catedratico at a Spanish university (NPROF No. 5). I agree that he is looking weak on the citation front.
This paper didn't show up for me in an ordinary GS search (I fount it via his research gate). It has more citations (30) than his 'The absence of multiple universes of discourse in the 1936 Tarski consequence-definition paper', which is highlighted in the article. I realise the count is low, even for his field, but it is not low enough to make me question whether he less than a regular catedratico in Spain.
Modussiccandi (
talk)
12:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Well, I think Necrothesp's comment above summarises well why I think the catedratico position satisfies Criterion No. 5: full professorships in Europe match chaired professorships in the US in prestige.
Modussiccandi (
talk)
07:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak delete. I am not convinced that full professorship at a European university is comparable to a named chair in the US. My understand that
WP:NPROF C5 is anyway supposed to be a proxy for the other NPROF criteria (especially C1), and significant progress towards the other criteria should be visible. I don't see that here. I also don't see much in the way of other signs of notability. The most likely appears to be
WP:NAUTHOR, but this would require reviews.
Russ Woodroofe (
talk)
17:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment The impression I have about European chairs is that the situation varies. The newer universities are likely to follow the US pattern, others are transitional. I think each individual instance needs checking, and the best way will be through their website. If he is the only professor of the subject in the university, then it's meaningful. DGG (
talk )
01:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)reply
... and among the list of faculty
[1] at the department associated with the page linked by
Modussiccandi, I see 11 current faculty with Catedrática/o in their title, out of about 60. That does not include the subject here, who is listed among former faculty
[2] (where there are another 6 catedratica/os.)
Russ Woodroofe (
talk)
17:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)reply
I find 11 out of 60 a reasonable number. At my own department at a British university, the ratio is not drastically different. In my particular subject group, we have five tenured staff members, three of whom are full professors. I understand, of course, that not all UK universities are in all respects comparable to the subject's institution. The fact that he is retired now is not a problem for me; What matters is that he has held the post at one point.
Modussiccandi (
talk)
18:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)reply
It looks like the somewhat successful
WP:MILL professor will achieve the Catedrát rank by the end of her/his career. This is not a characteristic of a position meeting
WP:NPROF C5, although many such senior professors may be notable. I agree that whether he is retired or not is irrelevant to notability, and did not intend to imply otherwise. @
DGG: may have further comments.
Russ Woodroofe (
talk)
08:40, 10 December 2021 (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.