Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Giordano


 * 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 Speedy deleted per G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement. The infringement dates back to the very beginning of the article, and it was previously deleted in 2006 for the same reason. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Antonio Giordano

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NOTEBLP and WP:ACADEMIC Cwobeel (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 2.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 03:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. 20 papers in GS with over 200 citations give a very clear pass of WP:Prof, but puffery needs much pruning. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC).
 * Strong keep. That's 20 papers in GS with over 200 citations each. A very clear pass of WP:Prof, as Xxanthippe says, and a complete failure of WP:BEFORE on the part of the nom. -- 101.117.89.99 (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying what I meant to say. I second your sentiments. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Keep per WP:PROF. But it looks like much of the text of the article was copied or closely paraphrased from this source; it may need to be stubbed down. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.