Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saverio Tomasella


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Saverio Tomasella

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Copied from French Wikipedia, apparently, but does not appear to meet enWP notability standards. To the point of almost being an A7. Guy (Help!) 00:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Citations ate too tiny for WP:Prof. Nothing else. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep. I am unable to understand the basis for the deletion. Head ofa laboratory in a major French university, author of 22 academic books by established French publisher, multiple journal articles in French humanities journals. I consider the frWP to be at least as rigorous as us in the evaluation of academics, and Iit would take pretty strong evidence to make me think we should reject an unchallenged article there on a subject like this. It's true he's not in the hard sciences, but on the softer side of psychology, but we shouldn't use that as a criterion.  DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I get skeptical of "centres of research" in soft sciences with articles created by SPAs and citing predatory journals. I am, I know, a nasty suspicious bastard. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Gets substantial press coverage. 80.219.255.14 (talk) 08:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak delete this psychoanalyst is not a big name in the history of psychoanalysis, and surely the criteria we should use to establish notability is not the number of works he has had published, but how widely cited these works are. Vorbee (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. I think it reasonable to follow the lead of French WP here; sufficient published works to indicate that this is a public figure worthy of encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. As an occasional French Wikipedia editor, I concur with DGG's assessment. The article has substantially more development there. bd2412  T 02:33, 23 December 2017 (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.