Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea D'Angelo

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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea D'Angelo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Little independent coverage, having published a few books confers no notability. DrStrauss talk 18:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable author.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently important Italian science fiction. Also in the French WP. and I givethem considerable respect for notability. Has the nom made a proper search in Italian review sources? DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: yep. DrStrauss talk 21:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

interesting. I interpret that result as meeting the GNG. It looks like substantial coverage to me, as appropriate for the subject. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of Andrea D'Angelo in those Italian sources. They all refer to different people with the same name (a council politician in Civitavecchia, a football patron, a lawyer...).--Alienautic (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- it.wiki article is equally unconvincing for notability. No 3rd party sources are present in the article, and my searches have not been successful. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 08:06, 10 September 2017 (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.