Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attilio Speciani

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attilio Speciani

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

No evidence of any notability. Reads more like an advertisement. All the refs are his own published works. Nothing here suggests any notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a CV and don't see any lasting substantial notability. Kierzek (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is written in a way which looks promotional. It appears to be a direct translation from an Italian wikipedia article where it is also the subject of an Articles for Deletion discussion. Although this person has several publications to his name, I can't see that he passes WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. I had a look for independent coverage in reliable English-language sources but couldn't find anything. Notability hasn't been established. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; appears to be a direct translation of its Italian counterpart, which is itself being discussed for deletion. Fails WP:PROF quite clearly (a hadful of citations, no important posts, etc.), not to mention WP:GNG. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:18, 28 June 2016 (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.