Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bart Rossi


 * 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   no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Bart Rossi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An article on this subject was deleted as A7 in September 2012 and was re-created about two weeks later. The sources presently in the article are links to shows he has appeared on etc., but there doesn't seem to be any coverage at all in third party sources that would establish notability. Google just pulls up Facebook, Linked-in, and the like. Diannaa (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. A professional pundit [media consultant]. The punditry alone not sufficient, need to see sources about the pundit, that are independent of the pundit's sources. The book is not notable, lacks multiple reviews in reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Keep per WP:PROF #7 "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." That seems to be the case here. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. He not frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert, so he does not satisfy that criterion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * He's very often quoted. Do a Google Video search to start. Go to his personal website and look at his media appearances page. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2013 (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.