Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paolo Tasca


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Paolo Tasca

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apparent promotional page; most content was created by two SPAs. Literally every reference is primary - this is a BLP with zero third-party RS content, which is unacceptable for a BLP. WP:BEFORE shows passing mentions, no biographical detail. Unclear he meets WP:NPROF - PROD was removed citing a high H-index ... but again, the literally zero third-party RS sourcing for biographical details would mean the article should not exist as a BLP. I'd love to be shown wrong, but it would take actual RS sourcing. David Gerard (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete: per nom.  cryptocurrency / blockchain / digital currency advisor field. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. His Google Scholar profile shows one well-cited multiple-author work and everything else in double digits, not enough for WP:PROF notability in a high-citation field. And no other notability is evident. The promotional and badly-sourced nature of the article is also problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2019 (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.