Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Mangano


 * 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 delete per WP:G5.‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ XOR&#39;easter (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Dennis Mangano

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Draftify moved unilaterally to main space when unready. I think the subject might potentially have some notability, but the article is not written to show it, nor referenced to show it. Flagged as failing WP:GNG after arriving in mainspace by the editor who moved it to mainspace. Being charitable, this feels as if the move were in some manner accidental. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics, Medicine,  and United States of America.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  01:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Draftify per nom. Not ready for mainspace.  Other than one lawsuit in 2007 (which isn't mentioned in the article prose), the references seem to just be his published research papers. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Draftify. New enough for this to be a reasonable choice, sources inadequate for current content, but with some possible case for notability (possibly through WP:PROF). That criterion does not require depth of sourcing for notability itself, but it does not eliminate the need for all claims in our article to be properly sourced. In particular all claims of having invented or discovering something important should be backed up by reliable independent sources that verify those claims; his own publications are not adequate for that kind of claim. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Draftify (the AFC reviewer who originally declined the submission). I do think the subject could meet the GNG, as there is some coverage (I have 1E concerns as it relates to the fact that a lot of the coverage will be primary in regards to the various lawsuits) but that is not demonstrated here and I have doubts that its demonstrated presently and the I have non-encyclopedic concerns about the article in mainspace presently. microbiology Marcus [petri dish·growths] 18:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete G5: Sock of blocked user Harrysigma 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:12, 1 July 2024 (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.