Deletion of Lorenzo Iorio (2nd nomination)

Comment: Also Nsk92 does not refer to merit and content, do not take into account wiki rules themselves at all clearly ignoring  them, refutes to use NASA ADS and deal with the irrelevant sockpuppet stuff. David Eppstein writes deliberately distorted and clearly incorrect statements. Everybody (serious) can check that, actually, NASA ADS and GS do '''''not''''' yield same results at all. David Eppstein, why do you refute to look at all other papers by Iorio NOT considered by GS but considered by NASA ADS? It is incorrect to state that Iorio's h-index is padded by self-citations. The non-self citations are 663. Anyway, it is  a fact that you are ''deliberately ignoring'' the wiki rules about  and otability. These are facts, not speculations. All here adopt the same points by Lucas: "I don't want to hear what you say", or "I refute to put my eye in the telescope
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:N)

Comment: per Xan's findings. The only real claim to something that might pass  in the article is the high citation count for his articles. But, at least as viewed in Google scholar, the citation counts are not that high (less than 50 max) and heavily larded with self-citations (the top entry in Google scholar, "The LARES mission revisited: an alternative scenario", is listed as having 45 citations but by my count only 3 of them are not self-cites; the next one "The impact of the static part of the Earth's gravity field" is listed as having 42 citations but by my count only one is not a self-cite. So the claim to #C1 fails, and what else is there
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF)

Comment: From what can be understood from the article, this is a good researcher, just like thousands more in any given country, rather than one who has "made significant impact" or any other rof#C1|criterion for academics. For instance, the "prize for his scientific activity" is a "premio di operosità scientifica" (literally, something like "prize for scientific hard work"). I find nowhere what this is supposed to mean, but a quick google search for ''premio "operosità scientifica"'' shows a large number of people being awarded it, rather than it being "a highly prestigious academic award" (and the only proof given for the prize is a scan hosted in a non-descript website
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: per Xxanthippe and David Eppstein. Iorio's h-index is heavily padded by self-citations, and there is not much else here to hang one's hat one in terms of passing . Given that the prior AfD was the target of heavy sockpuppetry, one should be particularly careful here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Although the article is full of vainglorious puffery a Google Scholar h index of 18 would often predispose to a pass of rof#C1. However, in this case, in a search of the 'cited by' lists on GS much labor is needed to find citations that are not self-citations
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: Lucas, I quote directly from : "If an academic/professor meets ''any'' '''''one''''' of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable. If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they ''may still'' be notable, if they meet the conditions of otability or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. '''Before applying these criteria, see the detailed Notes which follow'''. 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." As I am trying to let all of you here understand, point 1. is met from NASA ADS, which is the database which is appropriate to this case, given the field of activity of Iorio. Then, please read carefully also otability and the criteria inside. They are met by the media coverage. Since Iorio has been compared here to other common scientists, many of them have their own articles here, please note that very few have this media coverage. Anyway, again, here we are not a scientific commettee deciding if hiring Iorio or not. We are evaluating an article for its content and according to to the wiki criteria. Please, also look at the ''CONTENT'' of the previous discussion about the recreation of the article, which Bgwhite claims to be happened under (''false pretences''-why? On which bases you say that
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:N||WP:N)