Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabrizio Tassinari


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  04:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Fabrizio Tassinari

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

The article completely lacks independent third-party sources, there are only links to the guy's own pages and books. Seems a lot like advertising. HPfan4 (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics,  and Italy.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't done a WP:BEFORE search, but the nom is correct, the article fails GNG on its face. (I looked into this very quickly but wanted to leave a quick note.) SportingFlyer  T · C  19:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I think since there is no secondary sources to satisfy WP:V and decent WP:BEFORE should be done per best practice. I found this book review which might go some way towards WP:NAUTHOR.  I think probably the book The Pursuit of Governance at  may be notable, but I suspect he is not. It needs a better academic search, but no other reviews on any of this work turned up.    scope_creep Talk  11:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep - a Google Scholar search indicates he's a prolific academic writer and widely cited. He's notable per criteria #1 of WP:NACADEMIC.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Delete His G-Scholar showing is actually pretty low - a total of 650 cites, and most of his articles have cites in the low 2 digits. That isn't enough for WP:NACADEMIC. I found a few places where he is quoted, but that's all. I also checked Italian newspapers and he doesn't turn up there either. This was done by an SPA, and the entire upper portion of the article is unsourced, so possibly the creator got the info from him directly. I don't think we have enough here to keep this. Lamona (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have replaced two useless citations to books that he wrote himself with citations to independent reviews. More needs to be done. Why is it that most of our articles about academics seem to cite their own writings rather than independent sources? Are academics uniquely thick in that they write this way? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per Lamona. I trust their understanding of WP:NACADEMIC more than my own.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:23, 16 July 2023 (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.