Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emilio Tomasini


 * 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.  Sandstein  12:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Emilio Tomasini

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable businessman. Mrfrobinson (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  06:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  06:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  06:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * comment: Who said he is a businessman ? He is a Trader and a well known Financial Analyst.

Keep : https://www.google.co.in/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Emilio+Tomasini%22&gws_rd=cr&ei=JdJWVpnTMYaqjwOcyYHwCA and  https://www.google.co.in/search?q=%22Emilio+Tomasini%22&tbm=nws&gws_rd=cr&ei=ENJWVtCVI4i2jwOm0aTwCA proves his notability. Alwayssmileguys (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete - all non-RS profiles, not enough RS to support bio. Also, incredibly promotional, could be speedied for that. Usterday (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep He is more than just a businessman. Most businessmen are not adjunct professors of finance.  His book Trading Systems: A new approach to system development and portfolio optimisation is still in print six years after being published, which is very good for a financial guide, what is more it is still being cited by scholars, and still being positiely reviewed, for example here. Also most businessmen aren't advisors to mutiple banks and money-management funds. The coverage is a little slim, but given his occupations, seems about right. --Bejnar (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I have to agree with Bejnar here. More than just a businessman with the authorship and adjunct professor of finance. --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 19:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * delete - the coverage is simply not there. The only source that is not primary are the Il Resto del Carlino (where the person is quoted briefly in an article that is not about him); other than that the sources consist of profiles of him from a few different places, and articles he has written. Being an adjunct professor does not confer notability (see WP:PROF for notability requirements for academics) and being an advisor to banks and funds also isn't in itself a sign of notability unless there is significant coverage in multiple independent sources - which, again, there does not appear to be. There are millions of books that are in print six years after they were published. The book that Tomasini co-authored (a fact that wasn't mentioned in the article) gets very few hits in citations indices. --bonadea contributions talk 12:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Most of the sources in the article are not independent cf his publisher, his university, a commercial site he is associated with (TenPointTrading) and several sites that look like PR sites. (One even says "You are currently viewing the SEO version of TRADERS´ English I October 2014." ) . He fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. J bh  Talk  22:13, 15 December 2015 (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.