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 keep. Davewild (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Padovani

[edit]

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

Does not seem to assert notability. He could have been anything in that group - the janitor...

Even if he did contribute importantly to the discovery - that does not seem to mean that he passes WP:ACADEMIC. ·Maunus·ƛ· 09:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS cites 1874, 350, 178, 118... h index = 18. Passes WP:Prof#C1 Another time-wasting nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I improved the article myself and added sources and I now find it probable that he is notable. I think xxanthippeø's attitude is unhelpful though - it is never a waste of time to get other peoples opinions about whether an article is notable when in doubt. If you are oitherwise busy you could have refrained from voting - and if you aren't you could have fixed the article your bloody self. SOmetimes an Afd is also the best way of directing editors eyes to article that need work.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There should be enough sources to demonstrate notability, I will try to expand this tomorrow. But Xxanthippe will you quit taking swipes at the people who nominate such shitty articles for AFD?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your commitment to improve the article. I will do my best to be diplomatic, but when articles about academics are nominated for deletion without regard for long established policy, it tries the patience of other editors. I add that this particular AfD is not a clear-cut case and is worthy of discussion here, but its nominator seems to have been unaware of WP:Prof#C1 when he proposed it for speedy deletion. If an article is "shitty", policy requires it to be improved (where there are sources, as there are in this case) rather than be deleted speedily. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The subject is not a professor. And as the article was it wasn't even clear that he was an academic - much less what kind of an impact his reserach might have had if he were.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was not too pleased with your comments implying that I'm "incompetent" at James F. Allen. I use google books and James F. Allen turned up nothing. And I couldn't see anything solid in a google search. Notability is not always that obvious. Maunus nominated this for deletion based on the same premise.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the comments about your search there. It's best to roll with the punches. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a bit of a WP:BIO1E flavor to our existing article, but I think the citation record as listed by Xxanthippe is good enough for a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could use some tweaking, but as it stands it makes a credible claim of notability backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2011 (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.