Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Benazzi


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn on request of nominator following article improvement. Neutralitytalk 19:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Mario Benazzi

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Searches for any substantial reliable sources about this person have yielded nothing. Delete as non-notable. 4meter4 (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The source that I have cited in the article, taken from an edition of the Italian Journal of Zoology published in honour of Benazzi and a colleague, demonstrates that he is considered to have been a leader in the field of evolutionary cytogenetics. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. In what way does this source meet the Significant coverage requirement spelled out at WP:GNG? It's evident from the title of the work that Benazzi was not the primary focus of the publication. Further, I'm not convinced yet that this person meets the requirements at Notability (academics). 4meter4 (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Try looking at the content of the source rather than just the title. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep as a member of the Accademia dei Lincei. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment membership in the Accademia dei Lincei does indeed indicate notability. Thanks for adding that to the article. However, their still is the issue of the lack of "significant coverage".4meter4 (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure if I understand you correctly, but: Are you suggesting there might be too little "significant coverage" of the person himself? A scientist is notable because of his scientific work and the resonance it has received from his peers, so that's what most of the article's attention should be directed to. It's next to impossible for a recipient of such merits not to be the subject of "significant coverage", because the preferred media of such resonance are (scientific) publications. In other words: Meeting WP:ACADEMIC always means meeting WP:GNG (for some reason, you're already the second person to whom I have have to explain that today). Or are you referring to the article's current state? That's a quality issue, not one of notability, as given in your rationale. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, but it seems to me that merely citing works which reference Benazzi's research is not enough. What I would consider a significant source is something where Benazzi himself or at least an aspect of Benazzi's career is the primary topic. Also, Who's Who is really not a good example of this as the Who's Who books are usually authored by the subjects themselves; many of whom pay to have themselves included in the book.4meter4 (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Meets requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The academy membership is enough for WP:PROF and the obituary I added to the article (and another one I couldn't find online, "In memoria di Mario Benazzi (1902-1997), G Mancino, Ital. J. Zool, 1998") provide enough sourcing to serve as the basis for an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That obituary is at . Phil Bridger (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll add a cite. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Withdraw nom per the excellent work done on the article. Thanks everyone for your efforts.4meter4 (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2011 (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.