Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Racanelli


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Francesco Racanelli

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It's not clear to me that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. The sources that refer to him appear to be questionable at best. He gets one hit in JSTOR, because someone wrote an undergraduate thesis about him in 1972. He wrote a good number of books. Is that alone enough to make him notable? I have had little or no success in finding reliable mainstream sources that refer to him; but maybe that is my fault. I believe some discussion would be useful. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Borderline/Neutral -- nominator has done a great job laying out a fair case. There are a number of books published by real presses, most held by top libraries, but none with a lot of penetration in Worldcat (most at 6-11 libraries), on the other hand some of the books have gone through four or more editions which suggests that there could be more influence than we're seeing with electronic catalogues.  Italian journals are notoriously underdigitized so references to someone who published mostly in the 50s are hard to come by. A thesis written about him suggests some influence and the article seems fairly written. My sense is that he might barely not make the cut, but the encyclopedia is not harmed by having this article which is unlikely to attract self-promotion or puffery.   -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  00:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  05:51, 6 July 2013 (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.