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 to delete, also as copyvio.  Sandstein  18:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Frasca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This person may well be notable. However notability is not asserted despite the lengthy bibliography. The roles he has assumed do not confer notability (Major, analyst, research fellow, teacher--whether full professor or otherwise--and lecturer), nor is the reader given any context of the nature, scope, or reception of his written oeuvre. There has been ample opportunity for this article to be improved, but the creator (who appears to be the subject) hasn't returned to it in nearly a month (the last edit by the creator was three days after the first). Bongomatic 03:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I searched a few databases in the field of economics (one of his fields of expertise), and got not hits. A Worldcat search returned 16 books, including some false hits, and nearly all in Italian. The most widely held book is in 17 libraries worldwide. The Italian Wikipedia has him mentioned in 4 articles, but he has no article there.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just double-checked, and it looks like those Italian Wikipedia hits are mostly false positives. I can't tell for sure, since non parlo italiano.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep since when do we delete articles because they aren't being worked on? Notability would be as an historian. It's hard to tell the influence of his works, besides noting that some of them are in some of the major US libraries [1] Google Scholar isn't useful for this sort of subject by non-anglophone authors. DGG (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The delete isn't because it's not being worked on; rather, the delay of nomination was because it might have been. Bongomatic 04:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep looks plenty notable to me, we need to be careful about systematic bias against non-english centric articles. this article should have been marked expert and needs improvement, not delete. --Buridan (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure "looking notable to" an editor is a criterion for inclusion in the notability guidelines. The subject generates an absolutely low number of hits on google, and after reviewing many pages of them, the only person who has the name of the subject who appears notable appears to be a different individual. The biblography alone doesn't demonstrate that he's generated significant coverage, and the lack of readily obtainable references. "Expert" attention has already been brought to bear by way of the subject himself, who appears to have created the article. Bongomatic 17:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

try changin the language specificity of your google search, i gave up on the notability guidelines years ago as they tend to just generate lawyering and not analysis of notability. tell me, on what basis do you think he is not notable? is it because of coi? that doesn't make him not notable, or is it that you can't find enough verifiable material? if it is the latter, then you want it improved by someone who can, if no one improves it in time, then afd it again. It was twice speedied, twice declined, once declined on sufficient notability. the article hasn't been up long enough to get improved in the wikipedia mixingbowl, give it time. --Buridan (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete First off, the article might be able to be speedied as a copyvio of this old geocities page. Furthermore, there is no assertion of notability in the article, so any discussion his notability must involve any external sources found. If the subject was truly notable, his works would be commented upon in English as well as Italian sources. None of this crucial commentary can be found in Google or Google news. Google scholar shows the general papers excpected of an academic but nothing to hint that he is a pioneer of any specific field of research. Themfromspace (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2008 (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.