Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emanuele Franz


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 18:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Emanuele Franz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NAUTHOR. While there are several articles discussing him they all seem to be local coverage. He does not seem to have attracted wider attention. According to the article most of his books are published by a publishing house which he established. There is no corresponding it.wiki article. J bh Talk  13:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  J bh  Talk  18:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  J bh  Talk  18:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment The page at it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuele_Franz was deleted.   appears to be the deletion discussion.  In a seven-day discussion, there was only one comment, "Despite the voice extender continues to delete alerts, my voice seems too self in order to establish that the person is encyclopedic. (See also Extended Thinking) - .mau. ✉ 22:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC) "  Unscintillating (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Not all of the books were from Audax.  I looked at one of the references in the article and it was legit.  It said that Noam Chomsky had given a one-sentence reply to the author.  I also found an AfD for Articles for deletion/Extended Thinking, where  declared this topic notable.  Also, .    Its all slim, but the publisher Audax Editrice might be considered here for inclusion in a suitable topic, as it is good to get publishers listed at Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but it must be rewritten.  Aduex is his personal project, but it publishes books written by others also, and most of its publications are literary, not pseudo scientific mysticism. I agree  that we should try to write articles on publishers even if it means a generous interpretation of  sourcing, because this is of great hel pto the users of WP in evaluating sources.  If we were to have only one article, it should be on hte publisher.  DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep this author knows his shit.64.134.243.113 (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete There is not enough coverage demonstrating this person is notable, nor have his works garnered enough wide spread attention or noteworthiness to demonstrate significance, hence this person fails GNG and WP:AUTHOR. The fact that he owns a publishing concern or is self-published appears to be trivial details. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  18:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  18:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly an advertorial page with insufficient sourcing to establish notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, at this point not significant coverage to be notable; promo piece and fails WP:AUTHOR. Kierzek (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as WorldCat shows no library holdings, nothing listed here then convinces otherwise we can keep and improve this to a suitable and confident state. SwisterTwister   talk  02:26, 19 September 2016 (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.