Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piero Scaruffi (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. JForget 23:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Piero Scaruffi
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Largely self-published author. Appropriateness of article has been repeatedly discussed on talk page and should be brought to a wider audience. Keep reasons given in previous afd such as mention in album reviews on Amazon are not within policy. Peter cohen (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC) (categories)

Delete as nom This author seems to be largely known for his self-published rock reviews. Although he has been the subject of an articel in the NYT, this seems to have been a flavour piece about this person who has a big website of his own rather than a profile of a persopn of lasting signifcance. In a previous discussion on the article talk page, there was mention of him as a recommended review source at WP:Albums. I have checked the project page today and he is not mentioned there and Amateur sites such as his are deprecated in WP:Albums. However album infoboxes continue to be altered with insertions of this man's reviews e.g. the five edits today by this anon. The removal of this article will make such additions stand out as redlinked. The previous afd received very few comments and reasons given such as mention on Amazon and someone thinking the nom was in bad faith are inadequate reasons for keeping per WP:Notability.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The originl AFD got it right. Google news search shows profiles in New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and quite a few citations of him as an authority on music. Google Scholar turns up 150+ hits, including frequents mentions and publications in MIT's Leonardo journal. While being mostly self-published is usually a bad sign, it's overridden when people pay attention to what you publish.  I.F. Stone self-published most of his work, and nobody rational challenges his notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * commentThe NYT seems to be the only profile and that read to me as a flavour piece and not one about him as a really notable person. The Tribune piece I see looks more like him as a talking head and I don't see this as meeting Notability (academics). Leonardo is only partially peer-reviewed. Judging by the page count, none of his listed contributions exceed the 2500 word minimum for peer review. Therefore they too fail Notability (academics). --Peter cohen (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't recall invoking Notability (academics); I just discussed coverage under the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per original AfD. Jujutacular talkcontribs 13:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not an important rock critic IMO, but well-known in web music circles. (I cannot comment informedly on Scaruffi's other accomplishments.) This article needs more independent secondary sources to demonstrate notability, but in my opinion the Times article is a start. Article as current written probably gives insufficient weight to music writing, which is all most readers would care about. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —John Z (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article needs improvement but he's had enough media coverage to establish notability:     etc. 96T (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. May not pass WP:PROF but very likely meets WP:BIO based on news coverage.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficient independent coverage for notability, and he is certainly sufficiently well-known that we should have an article about him.--Michig (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2009 (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.