Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Carezani


 * 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. Unlike the related AfD, Articles for deletion/Autodynamics, there has been sufficient consensus established to warrant a Deletion ~ Anthøny  12:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ricardo Carezani

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This particular individual is not notable, neither per WP:BIO nor WP:PROF. The only mainstream notice of this person and his "signature" idea autodynamics has been through a wired.com article, which is not nearly enough to establish notability (See a previous AfD decision for precedent in this regard.) Moreover, as an academic, this particular person not particularly accomplished or recognized. There is also a matter of undue promotion made on the part of the authors of the autodynamics website in a possible conflict of interest or even soapbox representing the more gradiose claims in the text. Research this one carefully and you'll see that the sources used are all due to the internet promotions of a single non-notable would-be filmmaker David de Hilster thus you should pay attention to web guidelines for inclusion as well. This is a complicated one, so please be thoughtful in your evaluations. Nondistinguished 21:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment please comment on related AfD: Articles for deletion/Autodynamics. Nondistinguished 21:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete, since his only notable significance is the development of Autodynamics. Failing that, merge with Autodynamics. Xihr 21:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per my argument above. It would seem more reasonable to keep this one, as there is more content--his bio and his other views can be included. But one is certainly enough, and either would do. DGG (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that this person is notable per WP:BIO or WP:PROF? Nondistinguished 00:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The subject is notable only for his crackpot Autodynamics. Merge some basic biographical info into the AD article. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to autodynamics. Individual has no notability outside of his absurd theory. Cool Hand Luke 02:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep as there are sources here.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 09:33, 11 August 2007 (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.