Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enrico Cambiaso


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Enrico Cambiaso

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

Reviewed during new page patrol. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. Previously deleted, creator is indeffed as a a sock. None of the references are about him. North8000 (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete pure cruft, delete. Oaktree b (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:TOOSOON. Recent PhD in a high-citation field. Posting as a researcher at CNR is respectable but his citation record is not enough yet to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF and nothing else in the article rises to the level of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't think it's "pure cruft", whatever that means, but I agree with David Eppstein that the subject is too early career as yet. His Google Scholar profile shows one well-cited paper and one moderately cited, both on the slow DoS attacks (106,71,41,39,34). Espresso Addict (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Was implying it's too vague as to why he's notable, it's more of a resume. Oaktree b (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This goes both ways. If we write articles on clearly-notable academics that cover their career milestones neutrally and encyclopedically rather than hyping up how big those milestones are, then deletionists (especially those unaware of what constitutes significance in an academic biography) think that because we are not hyping them up, there must be nothing to hype up, and therefore that they are non-notable, and that because our articles discuss the career milestones neutrally and so do curricula vitae then WP:NOTRESUME applies. That reasoning is faulty, of course, but so is yours, for the same reason. Evaluate the impact they have made as academics, and the recognition they have earned for it, pay less attention to the steps they have taken to earn that recognition, and even less attention to the tone in which we discuss those steps in our articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't hype anyone up, we present the facts, if he doesn't meet standards here, then we can't keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:BLP] and [[WP:RS. References are by him, not about him. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2022 (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.